Maybe winbox for Linux and windows mobile 6.

Will ease things allot.

Thank You.

Install wine on linux and you will be able to run winbox without problems.

I am well aware, i could also install vmware if i really wanted too.

However it would just make things much simpler.

;p

Any plans for Winbox (or any MikroTik config apps) for Mac OS X native?

no, but we could make a web based system with all winbox features if that makes sense ..

Difficult to configure through web interface if it has no ip :p

I still think winbox needs to be available for other OS's.

It would save me a hell of allot of issues.

Pity winbox couldnt be made open source. Sure versions for linux, windows mobile, mac would jump up everywhere!

if it worked on other os it wouldnt be winbox anymore. it will be linbox and macbox. lol

rofl

Good point! So thats why it's impossible!
the name defines the technology

good point about the IP.

well, but you can already use the API to make a simple winbox version.

I more robust web version of Winbox w/ all of it's features would be sufficient (in lieu of version for Mac OS, Linux, etc).

Thank you for your reply and continued success with your fantastic OS and hardware.

Delmar

I would also prefer a native Mac OS App then to start virtual box or wine.
But it works nice with CrossOver from codeweavers

crossover and wine are the same, except wine is free.

Install wine on linux and you will be able to run winbox without problems.

I have wine installed on the two latest versions of ubuntu. In both, I can't drag files onto the files list in winbox. The only way I get to upload files (including package upgrades) is by ftp. Sometimes (most times!) this isn't convenient. Or is there something i'm doing wrong?

no, but we could make a web based system with all winbox features if that makes sense ..

I agree a native Mac / native Linux winbox (MikBox ?) for connecting via MAC address with no IP available. A web version would be handy at remote locations where everyone has access to the web. Maybe an open source web interface project to speed-up the developement process?

I use Mac as my main OS, then Linux windows last. I'd love to see a native solution for Mac!

Josh

How about just porting it to Java?

How about just porting it to Java?

This is possible using the RouterOS API.

I'm not the greatest in Java programmer, but if you want to start a project, let me know.
I have programming background, but not in Java unfortunately.

You probably don't know this, but Winbox before v2.8 was on JAVA all the time

what about drag and drop problem in wine? Can you just add button "upload files" in winbox, that opens file dialog?

we have FTP

You probably don't know this, but Winbox before v2.8 was on JAVA all the time

Why did you move away from Java for winbox? Less software dependencies?

You probably don't know this, but Winbox before v2.8 was on JAVA all the time

Oh, I remember just too well

does anybody have that old Winbox? =)

download, say, v2.4.7 from somewhere

Normis, do you have one? Google keeps silence

bottom of this page has screenshots

http://www.mikrotik.com/documentation/m ... Guide.html

Also interesting:

http://web.archive.org/web/200003250116 ... rotik.com/

looks nice, but still can't obtain any old version... just to look at the history =)

The simple thing is to have the webinterface, and a java? based program (to run on Windows, Linux and OSX) to set a ip to the unit, via the mac address.
The only purpose of the program is to list unit's found (like winbox) and setting the IP, so that a connection can be made to the webinterface.
Everything else can be done by the webinterface.

And maybe make the program opensource? so people can port it to iPhone, Android and WindowsMobile.


Just a thought...

Cool normis, it's exciting to look back to Mikrotik's beginnings. It's come along way since then for sure since I first started.

I have no problem with Winbox being windows only.

I work daily with Java consoles on Juniper, EMC, Nortel and HP equipment. They are slow, clunky and unreliable. In fact I dont trust them running on my native OS so I have a Windows XP VM with about 6 different JRE versions installed and I export the JRE path for each application just before it runs otherwise they wont run properly.

As far as Web-UI's are concerned, they can be quite good but do not deliver all the features available in WinBox. Hopefully Mikrotik make the web-ui an optional package.

we are evaluating possibilities what to do with management program, OSes come and go all the time. Supporting all of them would not be possible even if we had 3rd party contributors. Also, then quality of product would be of concern.

we are evaluating possibilities what to do with management program, OSes come and go all the time. Supporting all of them would not be possible even if we had 3rd party contributors. Also, then quality of product would be of concern.

A web-ui would work great for this reason. Available to all OS's (even the new Chrome OS by Google).

I like the style of the User Manager pages. The menu system is nice how it will expand by hovering your mouse over it.
An ajax-style might work great as well (rather than Java based), as most browsers support this now, and no third-party plug-ins are needed. I think User Manger web pages are AJAX right?

looks nice, but still can't obtain any old version... just to look at the history =)

I just opened some archive DVDs with RouterOS on it. Unfortunately it looks like the ones older than 2.5 are damaged...
So the best I could give you is 2.5.1, but that already had the WIndows-WinBox...

I'll search for older goodies

thanks, cmit =) hope, you'll find it

bottom of this page has screenshots

http://www.mikrotik.com/documentation/m ... Guide.html

LOL...PLEASE DON'T GO BACK. For MOST people, the winbox under wine is fine. The only thing that is difficult to deal with is the lack of support for drag/drop. For me, that doesn't matter much, since I usually have a terminal window open anyway. I am not a fan of java (well, I am a fan of the java that goes into a cup.).

butche,

What are you opinions on a complete Web-GUI? As I mentioned, it looks like Mikrotik's already using AJAX in most of their web gui's already.

What do you think of these ideas?

I agree, Winbox under wine is fine for me (because I know what I'm doing though). Not everyone is linux savvy, plus, a web-ui would free up having to download an extra app. (Yes I know you have to download putty to ssh from windows).

I would just really like to see a user manager -style interface as the main Mikrotik configuration interface.

What are you opinions on a complete Web-GUI? As I mentioned, it looks like Mikrotik's already using AJAX in most of their web gui's already.

My opinion? I think everyone should use CLI as I do for most things.

In all seriousness, I am a professional networker. In order to do my job, I need certain tools. One of those tools is the Mikrotik Router. To use that tool, I need a device (laptop/desktop) that will run the configuration tools to configure the Mikrotik. I don't see why anyone would want something different that winbox unless it was BETTER than winbox.

I agree, Winbox under wine is fine for me (because I know what I'm doing though). Not everyone is linux savvy, plus, a web-ui would free up having to download an extra app. (Yes I know you have to download putty to ssh from windows).

You're kidding, right? This extra app is a standalone app and is a total of what, 50k? You can hardly add a desktop shortcut for your router's web UI for that little. I am not convinced that a gui is needed at all, although I sometimes use winbox to monitor things (wireless, queues and such), but for configuration...it is all CLI..faster, more accurate and WAY safer, IMO.

I understand what you're saying. Yeah Winbox is small, and I use all the time without any problems.

I like Winbox definitely, but most others use a Web GUI these days, almost everything does. I'm saying it's just a bit more convenient with a Web GUI. I use CLI all the time as well, but sometimes just opening a Web browser is so nice for configuration.

BTW, I agree that the Web GUI should be better (or same) as Winbox if it's going to be the main configuration point.

really simple web UI is already there, jut that it is quite basic, compared to what we can configure through CLI or Winbox

If you are going to make advanced web GUI the please leave option to turn it off.
I am using Ubuntu 9.10 with wine 1.0.1.
Wine winbox problems are missing drag and drop (wine problem). This could be solved by adding + that opens "open dialog". Dude allready has it. That may be usefull in windows too.
Another problem is with copy paste. Let's say when i copy "wds1", i get "ؤ¼" in my clipboard. Maybe some problem with encoding or something. Maybe for windows 9x compatability?

Cli is not always an option, because in most cases winbox is more simple.
Anything official that would run on java or native in *nix systems would be good thing. With api we have to adapt software to any new feature that comes with new versions. So i don't want to use any third party programs.

Cli is not always an option, because in most cases winbox is more simple.

That's the opinion not held by everyone, though

Anything official that would run on java or native in *nix systems would be good thing. With api we have to adapt software to any new feature that comes with new versions. So i don't want to use any third party programs.

Java is slow and "klunky". It allows for "native" applications, but my question is "Why bother?". Winbox runs fine in Windows and Linux (wine). I don't know about Mac problems, as I have never used one, but my understanding is that it works. Mikrotik has plenty of things to tie up their time without "fixing" a problem that doesn't exist.

mikrotik have lots of other things to do

in the meantime

install a remote desktop on your "other OS", connect to a windoz machine and start winbox...

I would really like to see a native WinBox client for Mac OSX. But in the mean time, I find that "CrossOver" works the best for simple and effective emulation (even though it costs), and its supported.

People who feel that command line interfaces are the best are merely expressing their opinion, and rightly so. It probably does work the best for them. We all approach these issues a little different.
For myself, I use both WinBox and CLI. In reality, some commands are only accessible from the CLI, i.e. GPS, routerboard upgrade.

But as someone earlier has said, MikroTik has plenty of other issues to deal with at the present, and I agree.

-tp

install this: http://winebottler.kronenberg.org/

and you won't need to pay for crossover. DarWine is a free project, and it works well.

no, but we could make a web based system with all winbox features if that makes sense ..

I would love a full featured web configuration page. I got my RB750G for the vlan, stp, and bridging support. None of this is on the web interface? I have zero interest in windows, I don't own one, I have Apple macs. I expect a web ui to do what I want, and leave the side programs to people who really wanna work for their network.

You could make a full app for all OSes, but I should think a little cli program to set an IP would be largely easier, and then move everyone to a more complete web configuration.

no, but we could make a web based system with all winbox features if that makes sense ..

I would love a full featured web configuration page. I got my RB750G for the vlan, stp, and bridging support. None of this is on the web interface? I have zero interest in windows, I don't own one, I have Apple macs. I expect a web ui to do what I want, and leave the side programs to people who really wanna work for their network.

You could make a full app for all OSes, but I should think a little cli program to set an IP would be largely easier, and then move everyone to a more complete web configuration.

well, see post above yours.

I expect a web ui to do what I want, and leave the side programs to people who really wanna work for their network.

I guess I dont understand what you are getting at. You would rather spend more time clunking around your typical router web interface instead of doing it 2-3x faster from CLI or in Winbox?

I have yet to see ANY routers web interface be as fast to work with as the combination of winbox, cli, and notepad.

Then again. You are a Mac user..... Computers should do everything for you.

hey, mac have complete unix shell, whereas windows has that parody of a command line. don't judge a book by it's cover

what's so perfect about it? it's ugly

hey, mac have complete unix shell, whereas windows has that parody of a command line. don't judge a book by it's cover

I agree 100%, but that isnt why people start using Mac. If it were, they would pay 1/2 as much for a compouter twice as fast and run linux.

I agree with Normis.

All I can say is - if you want good news about this, come to the MUM

Normis...You teaser you...

hey, mac have complete unix shell, whereas windows has that parody of a command line. don't judge a book by it's cover

I agree 100%, but that isnt why people start using Mac. If it were, they would pay 1/2 as much for a compouter twice as fast and run linux.

Depends on what you're after, doesn't it. I don't know one single laptop that is "better" than my macbook pro. I only wish I could get one even smaller. I used gnu/linux for a very long time. I now have a much more embedded centric view of linux in specific. I have some interest in where android might go, not in relation to cell phones.

I find you comment arrogant, and condescending. I am guessing this comes from trying to convince yourself there is nothing you would want from a mac if you could get one. (note in specific your comment on cost) Assuming (you) you know what others expect from their macs, and assuming (you) that is all there is to be desired.

I find it supremely ironic Windows advocates used to say much the same thing about Linux users. Looks like you're just as they were, and enjoy heaping out abuse to defend your feelings of inadequacy. I really don't care if you ever enjoy a mac, I just want it well understood not all gnu/linux advocates act as badly, and in such poor taste as you do. I really hate how these days you can't comment on some product's forums, where you spent good money. Without somebody feeling the need to try to hand around insults, or "opinions."



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/arrogant
—Synonyms
1. presumptuous, haughty, imperious, brazen. See proud.

—Antonyms
1. meek. 2. modest, humble.

2. "Marked by or arising from a feeling or assumption of one's superiority toward others: an arrogant contempt for the weak. See Synonyms at proud"

I have no problem with OSX. Great OS. But. AS I said. My current laptop cost ~1/2 as much as a top of the line macbook and has about 2x the processing power. Not much of a choice, there.

Call that arrogant if you want. I call it a smart decision.

EDIT: And it runs Linux like a champ.

I have no problem with OSX. Great OS. But. AS I said. My current laptop cost ~1/2 as much as a top of the line macbook and has about 2x the processing power. Not much of a choice, there.

Call that arrogant if you want. I call it a smart decision.

EDIT: And it runs Linux like a champ.

I didn't say your purchase was arrogant, I said you here droning on about what you buy is arrogant.

It was a good buy for what you wanted to use it for. Mine is great for what I use mine for. Mine is not a top of the line macbook pro either, I got the smallest one I could get that would do what I required of it. I really did care about the size of my laptop. That is what makes you arrogant. You're talking as if your laptop, and linux would be the best choice for everyone, and under all circumstances. That is just simply not true. So kindly, keep your off topic insulting rhetoric to yourself. Sadly people like you are exactly why windows users dislike the gnu/linux community. If you do care about linux, then I suggest you quit cut&paste insulting users of other systems. Speak like you have something in between your ears, and be understanding. That is how we free more people.

On topic was the discussion about using a web interface like most "smart type" switches. I don't like having to install extra software on every machine I might use to change some settings on a switch. I do love the wine bottler app the staff recommended. It has the added benefit of being drop in, self contained, so you can use it on different systems.

Right. On-topic was having a web-interface to do all the stuff people dont understand how to do from CLI. I see a parallel...

Right. On-topic was having a web-interface to do all the stuff people dont understand how to do from CLI. I see a parallel...

I think you're wrong. I don't believe you need GNU/Linux installed on your laptop to use the CLI to configure our routers. Wanna try a new excuse?

And you dont need a web interface, either. "I expect a web ui to do what I want, and leave the side programs to people who really wanna work for their network".

Web UIs are inefficient, clumsy, and limiting. Typically speaking, they are for show, not go.

And you dont need a web interface, either. "I expect a web ui to do what I want, and leave the side programs to people who really wanna work for their network".

Web UIs are inefficient, clumsy, and limiting. Typically speaking, they are for show, not go.

Thank you for your opinions on the topic.

And you dont need a web interface, either. "I expect a web ui to do what I want, and leave the side programs to people who really wanna work for their network".

Web UIs are inefficient, clumsy, and limiting. Typically speaking, they are for show, not go.

well, i think i won't be exaggerating if i say you are in the minority with this opinion

It is what it is. Opinion. Part of me also thinks that the more you put in a WebUI, the more people *think* they know what they are doing. Then again, you could say the same thing about Winbox. I dunno. A full featured WebUI for ROS would be something amazing to see, but I think it would be pretty complicated to cover all the features, and I dont see it being a replacement for the console.

EDIT: I do firmly believe that current webui implementations are for show, more than go. I cant really think of any managed switch I have ever used that had full functionality in the webui.

It is what it is. Opinion. Part of me also thinks that the more you put in a WebUI, the more people *think* they know what they are doing. Then again, you could say the same thing about Winbox. I dunno. A full featured WebUI for ROS would be something amazing to see, but I think it would be pretty complicated to cover all the features, and I dont see it being a replacement for the console.

EDIT: I do firmly believe that current webui implementations are for show, more than go. I cant really think of any managed switch I have ever used that had full functionality in the webui.

sigh. would someone please rid us of this troll?

full functionality? no. but with GUI you can do some frequent things much faster and in more obvious way

what's so perfect about it? it's ugly

rofl.
it does appear that eh? for me, its very easy to read (I am visually impaired so anything with a
lot of "eye candy" can be very distracting). I have run across some web interfaces on commercial
devices that were not easy for me to use at all. This one appears to present all the require information
without making the screen so busy.

just lets see what is the new Web configuration tool for RouterOS. The old webbox as unusable if you knew what you want to do.

When you see the interface all comments would be appreciated, but do not judge before you see.

I would say an effort for a WebUI is a waste. We have Winbox which is rocking. We need to develop that or open-source it (which is the best idea).

Look at the AirOS WebUI of UBNT. It is just a pain in the a**. I hate using it, looking at it and configuring with it like every other WebUI on the planet earth. That simple !

Avoid the same mistake and use your programming efforts on something else.

I would say an effort for a WebUI is a waste. We have Winbox which is rocking. We need to develop that or open-source it (which is the best idea).

Look at the AirOS WebUI of UBNT. It is just a pain in the a**. I hate using it, looking at it and configuring with it like every other WebUI on the planet earth. That simple !

Avoid the same mistake and use your programming efforts on something else.

Funny. I was just configuring a couple Bullets and to do what I needed to do, it couldnt be done from the WebUI. Had to ssh in and setup a script to create mgmt vlans and such.

Im open to the idea. If it has all the features and functionality of Winbox, itll be cool. Better security w/ SSL as well. It would be a breakthrough in router/switch WebUIs if it had all the functionality of Winbox.

I'm in this a little late, but I am throwing my $0.02 in FWIW:

1. A Java port would be nice as it is multi-platform, and since it was originally Java based that should not be too difficult. There are other OSes besides Windoze, Linux, Mac, etc (OS/2, eComStation come to mind)
2. The WebUI should be improved.
3. Within the current interface configuring the Firewall part is confusing enough. WatchGuard has a very nice user interface and has plugins for other licensed components. Makes configuring a FW much easier.
4. Yes, Winbox is small and that is good. Java won't be but the JREs these days are much improved over 1.1.x and 1.2. Try NOT to rely on Windoze specific functions so the API is easily migrated elsewhere.

I'd be more than happy to assist in GUI stuff.

Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE

eon

I'm in this a little late, but I am throwing my $0.02 in FWIW:

1. A Java port would be nice as it is multi-platform, and since it was originally Java based that should not be too difficult. There are other OSes besides Windoze, Linux, Mac, etc (OS/2, eComStation come to mind)
2. The WebUI should be improved.
3. Within the current interface configuring the Firewall part is confusing enough. WatchGuard has a very nice user interface and has plugins for other licensed components. Makes configuring a FW much easier.
4. Yes, Winbox is small and that is good. Java won't be but the JREs these days are much improved over 1.1.x and 1.2. Try NOT to rely on Windoze specific functions so the API is easily migrated elsewhere.

I'd be more than happy to assist in GUI stuff.

Leon D. Zetekoff, NCE

eon

Java doesnt easily cover mobile platforms.

The Webfig will be exactly the same (functionality and looks) as Winbox. It will not replace anything, it will be another choice for you.

And yes, we tested and it works on iPhone and other new phones.

to make you all come down:

• it wont replace any existing tools MikroTik have created and we are using.
  if it is new tool it has to serve a purpose, creating another webbox would not do that and would be complete waste of time

Will Webfig allow you to access a RouterBOARD via the Mac Address using a Mac running OS X 10.6.3? Very specific question, but if this is the case, I'll be doing a happy dance and counting the days until a stable release is available.

And another question. I read somewhere that Webfig runs on the device and is not an app (like Winbox) that I can store and run locally on my Mac. If that is true, won't I need to use a PC anyway to update the RouterBOARD to the latest version of RouterOS (the one with Webfig) before I can use a Mac to access and/or configure it. If so, that will cause a not-so-happy dance.

Webfig is just a web interface for RouterOS. It uses HTTP, which uses TCP communication. It doesn't work from the MAC layer.

to make you all come down:

• it wont replace any existing tools MikroTik have created and we are using.

You can still use MAC telnet with winbox.

Webfig WILL NOT replace anything. It's just an ADDITIONAL configuration method.

There will probably be a "browse..." button to transfer update files through Webfig to your RouterOS for upgrade.

Webfig is just a web interface for RouterOS. It uses HTTP, which uses TCP communication. It doesn't work from the MAC layer.

You can still use MAC telnet with winbox.

Commence "not-so-happy dance."

What is "use MAC telnet with winbox." Using an Apple to telnet into a RB with Winbox? Using Winbox to telnet into a Mac Address? What? I'm so confused.

Webfig is just a web interface for RouterOS. It uses HTTP, which uses TCP communication. It doesn't work from the MAC layer.

You can still use MAC telnet with winbox.

Commence "not-so-happy dance."

What is "use MAC telnet with winbox." Using an Apple to telnet into a RB with Winbox? Using Winbox to telnet into a Mac Address? What? I'm so confused.

Using the MAC address when connecting via Winbox.exe

Using the MAC address when connecting via Winbox.exe

So does Winbox.exe use telnet to connect to RB's when connecting via IP address as well?

it has nothing to do with telnet. winbox uses winbox api

Just found the right combination of apps to use for getting Winbox to run on Mac OS X 10.6.3 Snow Leopard. After installing Wine, Winebottler, Xcode (from Snow Leopard Disc), X11 (from Snow Leopard Disc), Darwine, and XQuartz (X11), I have successfully gotten Winbox to open in Snow Leopard. Haven't tested the functionality yet. Haven't gotten to the office yet to hook up a RouterBOARD and see what happens, but this farther than I've gotten before.

I think the magic combination since I've tried all of these apps individually with no success was XQuartz and having Xcode installed. I say this because I got Winbox working on a Leopard machine (iMac) that had X11 and Xcode installed and nothing else. And after an extremely helpful tip-off by Normis (Thank You Normis), re: using XQuartz on Snow Leopard instead of the X11 that comes on the SL disc, Winbox opened up like was meant to run on a Mac all along.

is it possible (without winbox) to connect to RB with unknown IP? do you have utility like winbox for other OS's? or any hint how to connect w/o known IP?

As far as I am aware, it is not possible to connect to a RouterOS device with an unknown IP without using Winbox.

However, while I have not tested Winbox on Linux, I know that Winbox runs on Windows PC's with Windows 2000, XP, Vista, and 7 with no problem. I'm sure it will not be too difficult to run Winbox in Linux using Wine (probably easier than it was to get it running on Mac OS X) and I have successfully used Winbox on both Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard and Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard.

I am the Sr. Network Admin for a WISP in West Tennessee and never use a PC. I solely use my MacBook to administer the entire network.

With that said, what OS do you use? If it's one of these mentioned above you shouldn't have too much trouble getting Winbox to run and get into that RouterOS device using the auto-discovery and MAC address.

For info on getting Winbox to run on a Mac, see my above post.