Self-hosted cloud controller sounds very interesting. Having just set-up a legacy UniFi PC based controller for a friend's start-up (using 3 old UniFi APs I had spare), I'd forgotten just how easy it was there. Sure, I love the power, and therefore complexity, of RouterOS, but a simplified CAPsMAN accessed via the web would work well. The architecture would have to work differently though. I assume that CAPsMAN controlled access points will stop working if CAPsMAN is not accessible? With UniFi, they carry on working if the controller goes offline.

Self-hosted cloud controller sounds very interesting. Having just set-up a legacy UniFi PC based controller for a friend's start-up (using 3 old UniFi APs I had spare), I'd forgotten just how easy it was there. Sure, I love the power, and therefore complexity, of RouterOS, but a simplified CAPsMAN accessed via the web would work well. The architecture would have to work differently though. I assume that CAPsMAN controlled access points will stop working if CAPsMAN is not accessible? With UniFi, they carry on working if the controller goes offline.

+1 !

wasted time to write to this topic...MDC is dead.

I assume that CAPsMAN controlled access points will stop working if CAPsMAN is not accessible?

Why don't you try it out?

. Having just set-up a legacy UniFi PC based controller for a friend's start-up (using 3 old UniFi APs I had spare), I'd forgotten just how easy it was there.

Yeah, "super easy". Just need a computer that runs the unifi network software which needs a ton of resources. Without this software or a cloud key you can't even configure your APs. And unifi Android app just gives you like 10% of configuration options of controller Software. and once you get the idea: setup with controller Software and then use the Android app for simple changes. yeah, that made the AP I provisioned to a dumb brick. all SSIDS changed to some random id and encryption EAP. so really broken as broken can get. TFTP to restore.

YMMV

If they are configured as capsman-or-local, they will continue using local settings if capsman is inaccessible.

Thanks I'll check that out.

wasted time to write to this topic...MDC is dead.

The project may be dead @ Mikrotik but the topic isn't.

Yeah, "super easy". Just need a computer that runs the unifi network software which needs a ton of resources. Without this software or a cloud key you can't even configure your APs.

For smaller operations, the cloud controller is a quicker and therefore cheaper option that works fine. All I can say from personal experience is that my RouterOS/CAPs based clients seem to need a lot more attention that UniFi. I'm not sure what I'm trying to say here - I love RouterOS and want it to be super popular but can't deny it's far more complex. I'm hoping that once ROS 7 settles down, I won't be checking Mikrotik installs frequently. With UniFi, I sometimes don't check the controller for six months. Then all I might end up doing is updating the firmware on the access points. Which occur far less frequently than RouterOS. BTW my UniFi clients are usually just for the access points. The routers are Mikrotik. Once again, it's Wi-Fi that's the talking point.

There is a point here, just not sure I'm making it clearly.

I guess I'm a bit tainted with one particular site that's had lots of Wi-Fi issues but it's a busy bar in a highly congested area. It exposed some of the weaknesses in ROS 6 Wi-Fi. I'm planning an upgrade to ROS 7 soon but difficult part is getting time. Bar is open 10am until midnight! And I don't do nights :-)

But it can't really be argued that setting up a UniFi cloud controller environment is far faster than anything CAPsMAN based. Even if you've got the set-up process scripted. For many people, that's all they want. I don't seem to worry about 5GHz channel selection and/or DFS. It just works out of the box.

So I guess what I'm saying is that Mikrotik would be more successful in the UK if the management interface had a simple mode. Whether Mikrotik want that market segment is up to them. But going back to that bar - owned by a friend. The site is by far the busiest but he set-up another much smaller bar himself with UniFi. Mikrotik didn't get a look in.

RouterOS could go up against Cisco ;-) Having been a one-time part-time manager of Cisco kit, I know that's not easy either. Not used any of the recent Meraki management systems though. I have a moral problem with Cisco - cost ;-) My Yorkshire roots. A client recently sold up to a larger business and they ripped out the perfectly functional Virgin Media cable modem and Draytek router. Worked flawlessly for years. Replaced with a Meraki. I checked the price - £750 plus £200/year for the license. Robbing barstools ;-) Complete overkill for 5 people in an office. I digress...

The decision to buy Cisco is normally not motivated by cost or easy of use.
You may be able to take market share from Ubiquiti, you will never be able to take considerable market share from Cisco.

The decision to buy Cisco is normally not motivated by cost or easy of use.
You may be able to take market share from Ubiquiti, you will never be able to take considerable market share from Cisco.

Agreed - sad but true. I wonder how much money is "wasted" with over priced kit that's really not justified. Could feed the world I suspect ;-)

I don't seem to worry about 5GHz channel selection and/or DFS. It just works out of the box.

Different experience here with a U6+. The channel selection on "auto" is aweful. It even chose the same channel 1 of the only other 2ghz AP around. Pretty dumb

I know we think the controller idea is dead but some further evidence that client's wants something different. Readers may recall the on-going problems at a very Wi-Fi congested site at a bar and Wi-Fi simply not working or the speed dropping dramatically. Not exactly a complex set-up: router and four cAP ac access points. I visited the site this week to carry out the ROS v7 upgrade mainly because it scared the life out of me! I wanted to be there in case I had to failback to earlier version. The recent problem is devices not been able to connect to the guest Wi-Fi which is on a separate VLAN with a queue on it. Reboot the cAP AC and it worked. Anyway that's an aside to this post...

The client said "Tempted to replace the cAP ac with Unifi access points like we've got elsewhere because they just work and I can logon to a website to reboot/update them if required".

So there are two things here - Wi-Fi stability and accessibility of management.

PS. I'm hoping that the ROS 7 upgrade will help along with the wifi-qcom package which I've yet to switch to. Won't get around accessibility. They know they can remote into a laptop there to access Winbox but I completely agree with them that this isn't anyway as easy as logging onto a web site, selecting devices and rebooting/updating them. Which is all that we should really be doing after a installation! Shouldn't be continually tweaking and problem solving.

I guess only Mikrotik know where they want their business and whether SOHO is a market segment that's important to them.

If all you want to do is reboot ... unplug the POE cable and put it back in. Done.

True but once again, for ease of use this doesn't compare to the business owner (who isn't on-site) logging onto a website from anywhere and rebooting. I find myself falling into the trap of what is easy for IT support, isn't for normal human beings :-)

There is no argument here = Unfi cloud controller is more friendly and accessible than Winbox for SOHO.

Don't get me wrong, I love RouterOS but I'm a nerd and sometime programmer. Any device that I can script gets thumbs up from me. But sometimes, you just want an easy life ;-)

Indeed it might. Hadn't through about that! Easy implementation...

Ahh good point ;-) Why have I just lost access to the plug?? Darn!!!

Just checking in... MDC still "cancelled" with no whisper of any viable replacement/work for Dude either (since it hasn't been touched since 6.42 and Mikrotik decided to actively not migrate the wiki content for it to the new help site)?
I'm so heavily invested in Mikrotik, but I feel like I (and likely many others) are being pushed out to ubiquity... and I feel dirty for even thinking about that.

I've started a project with intention to build a Wi-Fi network based on Mikrotik devices and ended up with UniFi solution.
It just works and do all required tasks in auto mode under the hood, but has its own limitations. But for non-technical people it is a very handy solution.

I would say it is better to think that Mikrotik is working hard and soon we will see the result of 2 years of work :)

It depends.
If the interfaces are configured being under capsman control only, they will drop dead.
If they are configured as capsman-or-local, they will continue using local settings if capsman is inaccessible.

Ohh that wasn't what I expected at all! Of course, if the CAPsMAN controller goes down, it's usually the main router, so you've got a bigger problem. But I expected them to carry on with their existing settings until the controller came back - which is what Unfi controller does. But in the later scenario, the controller is either on a local computer (which could easily disappear) or cloud based (ditto with internet connection failing).

But for non-technical people it is a very handy solution.

Exactly... which is why as I'm starting to retire, I'm not going to do anymore Mikrotik installs as it's far too tied to me personally re updates. If there was a cloud based solution, then I might carry on. I was thinking about this - most higher power Mikrotik routers could run a small web server going via a web proxy to get around port forwarding issues. Also do authentication in the cloud, not on the device. It's not like it's going to get a lot of traffic. Might even be a nominal charge but should be less than Unifi cloud license as Mikrotik isn't running the web service.

Somebody mentioned a 3rd party attempt at a cloud controller? How does that work? Sends commands to the local router via some method?

Just checking in... MDC still "cancelled" with no whisper of any viable replacement/work for Dude either (since it hasn't been touched since 6.42 and Mikrotik decided to actively not migrate the wiki content for it to the new help site)?
I'm so heavily invested in Mikrotik, but I feel like I (and likely many others) are being pushed out to ubiquity... and I feel dirty for even thinking about that.

damn right.
a controller like the UNMS/UISP system from ubiquiti would be awesome. it does not do much but it would cover BASIC stuff like monitoring, config backup, firmware management.....

Shouldn't that be the Dude? And where is it now...

Shouldn't that be the Dude? And where is it now...

Yes. He's happily living in a Ubuntu VM with i386 wine, running on Intel Mac.

Folks understandably bag on the Dude's UI. But the backend server (dude.npk) is the real power. No cloud or containers & ahead-of-its-time using SQLite as the backend store. Once setup in the 1990's-like dude.exe UI, the server on RouterOS does all the heavy-lifting of monitoring/alerts/logs/charting/etc. It's more feature rich than it looks (e.g. I don't use it, but you have actually have a hierarchy of Dude servers). Just dated, and overly complex, UI.

If they just put a small subset of the Dude in webfig/etc, that go a long way. Dude maps show up in webfig today, but you cannot really add a monitored device to it using webfig.

I am running dude instance for ages too. Started on rb2011 that days, but since then in virtualized environments. Showing traffic, grabbing logs, making environmental scans. I am very sad that its development was stopped, because if it was evolving together with ros side by side - that would be something.

Dude is still working and usefull. BUT check competition...did you see cntroller from ubiquiti or even TP-Link? This is how to should look controller from 21 century...

Dude is still working and usefull. BUT check competition...did you see cntroller from ubiquiti or even TP-Link? This is how to should look controller from 21 century...

Agreed.

More saying adding some modern HTML (instead a 32-bit app), on what was already working well (at least the "backend" dude.npk part) — that does would not have taken 2 years. UBNT cloud does actually do all that much, so if UI started with those features & used Dude as backend... we'd have already had a "controller".

Now some folks see "controller" as being a Wi-Fi or SDN traffic thing too. That need, The Dude cannot help.

Some simple HTML interface to manage router/APs is all that was/is missing in the Dude (some of Dude is already in webfig, so even there no starting from scratch). It's a clean-sheet design — as if there was not already working code — is how we ended up here... with nothing.

Any news on this topic ? Does MT work on this

Nothing heard officially for a long time so sounds like it's a dead project.

MT is loosing the track...look at the competition...Even stupid TP-Link has already controller. Other companies are able to produce new HW, but MT is able only to do refresch of the old HW. Did you see the 60Ghz from UI? They have new long range products with AX backup. MT has not even full AC backup on not waterproof devices.

I know... rather sad but I'm moving back to UI. Life is sometimes too short. We've talked about what market they're looking for and I suspect the market I'm in doesn't fit in with their strategy (SOHO).

robmaltsystems, that's not a bad thing at all. I, for example, manage a handful of MikroTik devices in my private home. The advantages clearly outweigh the disadvantages (if any) for me: not forced to use the cloud, no need to connect to the cloud, devices can operate without cloud, no cloud subscriptions, no (China) spyware, no reduced functionality because I don't use the cloud, flexibility, devices get updates for a long time instead of EOLing after 3 years and having electronic bricks with EOL software on it. If I had to support real customers in a commercial environment, other factors would come into play. Customer satisfaction, competitive prices, reliability, centralized management, and so on. Why shoot yourself in the foot when it comes to professional service? robmaltsystems, if Ubiquiti works for you, I would never replace it. I, for example, experimenting with Unifi gear in my "lab" every few years to see/compare what changed over the years. To only find out: I still don't like it and it offers no advantage for me.

But still, a Mikrotik devices controller would be still a nice addition. Just not a Unifi network server which needs tons of RAM and computing power to run. 🤣

But for more SOHO, cloud controller is exactly what they do want.

Native support for push metrics / streaming telemetry!

Support for pushing data to influxdb or similar. We've moved away from "network monitoring" tools towards grafana dashboards for all server monitoring, firewalls, and are attempting to do the same on routers/switches. No SNMP inbound, proxies, agents, etc. Just a clean feed of desired details streamed off to a target of choice.

viewtopic.php?p=948888&hilit=influxdb#p948888

+++

this would be only half of the job, but implementing something like this would make mikrotiks much more easy to monitor using a lot of the current tools.
Regarding the configuration side, maybe a good integration with ansible (without all that work that needs to be done right now behind the scenes for integration) would be a good step forward in this direction.

Instead of building a proprietary controller solution, I would make first routeros more compatible with what is currently out there and build on top of that afterwars

But for more SOHO, cloud controller is exactly what they do want.

Yes, but with privacy in mind. It could all be based on the serial-number which Mikrotik already uses for "/ip/cloud" related services (DNS, BTH). No user data, no data collecting to cloud.

We all know that privacy should be of concern but for most SOHO it's not top of the list. Reliability and ease of use top everything else. I would guess that most of the newer routers are powerful enough to to run a cloud controller and associated website. 99.99% of the time, the website wouldn't be used. All (!) that MikroTik would have to offer is a proxy service so clients don't have to get involved in dynamic IP addresses and port forwarding.

In fact privacy is top priority for the "HO" of SOHO. In a commercial setting ("SO") it is different.

All (!) that MikroTik would have to offer is a proxy service so clients don't have to get involved in dynamic IP addresses and port forwarding.

They are already offering that...

Where?

Just be aware, Back-To-Home (BTH) is limited to only ARM and TILE architectures.

And already too complex.

BTH complex ? In what way ? It's a feature meant for home users.

Uses an app on mobile and not https through any web browser?

You can use it with standard wireguard app as well.

But there is a valid point made: BTH is only easy with android/iOS App. On any other platform it is like plain Wireguard (just with the bonus that you don't need a public IP).

But we are talking about Mikrotik here, you can't expect one click wizard or something. That app is a huge move forward in terms of simplicity on Mikrotik.

And while I agree with both of you that using plain wireguard app on win/mac os is complicated in compare with the app where you just scan QR code it's better than configuring wireguard from scratch.

I doubt that ROS will ever be simple as for eg. Ubiquiti or TP-Link in terms of configuration.

What would be more interesting and usable is stacking capability...

And already too complex.

SOHO this, Controller that....

The point is you are network administrator (sort of), and you get money (or not) for doing your stuff, if mikrotik hardware is hard because of lack easy-click-gui (even with quick setup, www) then no one is forcing it onto you. Use hardware that you enjoy working with and not that someone told you about.
SOHO - most device like tp-link/netgear would be enough.
I had pleasure to see people doing cisco in soho environment good luck with that CLI and paid upgrade ;)

I'm unsure if you upgraded that friend bard you mention to ROS 7, but if you didn't be aware that there been massive changes in way 6 and 7 configure wifi - why ? hell knows, but as network administrator of devices you picked you will have to figure it out - thats why if you enjoy doing thing from unif controller, go do that. I know many non network people (as you bar friend) that will have no issue with click-click the settings.

For the other hand, good luck with doing anything 'fancy' with that hardware. Many of us loves Mikrotik because you can do weird stuff on the device. You heard of MetaRouter on old mikrotik devices? Docker on ARM devices ? running your own code as script ? port knocking ? multiply vpn solution on one same device ? emulating your hardware just because you want to do network simulation (aka almost like in cisco trace packet) via GS3 - no problem! (do it with ubiquity, you can't)

Imo, Mikrotik is for people that loves to tinker with hardware while giving chance to people that are non-terminal-friendly (as CLI), with: API, CLI/serial, winbox, webgui interface for management.

I been using Mikrotik more than I would remember, until last week I never touched and think I would touch ubiquity controller/hardware - and I have to hand you, yes it looks nice, but that not the most important aspect for person like me, UI is most of the time one time only thing - you connect device, configure it and you ready to go, no need to play with it more - other than update firmware. I have admit U-Controller looks sleek, but then again - I have hardware that is able to do stuff that controller forbid me to do, because .... I have to replace my router with one I don't need.... also is good that the controller can be virtualized, because I remember time that you had to buy separate hardware just to use the hardware you needed to use... and no one here want to force that mentality on Mikrotik Team...

Privacy or not, having "cloud" controller outside of your domain, is also a risk factor which need to be taken, that's why local controlers exists - is it a security issue for your friends bar? - depends.

Last digresion, I can't recall if you said it or not, but someone said that mikrotik is targeted (or could be) on SOHO, but you are forgeting that A LOT and I say A LOT of hardware is targeted to ISP/Network providers....
BGP, GPON... In europe we have many and I need to say MANY ISP operators that use mikrotik as bare-structure... so maybe its about tinkering in home to use it in business after all.

Sorry for long post, but I had fun reading this long thread and I wanted to issue some topics.

Stay safe and have fun with everything you doing.

PS. as for the topic, I was always hoping DUDE would be the center point or extra "hand" with monitoring the system, but thanks to big community thing like zabbix does the job well enough.

why I don't trust vendors who force me into cloud: https://www.test-aankoop.be/hightech/wi ... s-onveilig

for those who don't want to use Google translate:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40917312

Wow, I want one of those, buy it and instantly speak Dutch. :-)
Hold on, getting one online.....
There, done the purchase now we zijn verliezers die we verloren van de Britten, maar ja, we hebben Klaver en Bol.
Holy cow, it works.

Sorry for long post, but I had fun reading this long thread and I wanted to issue some topics.

I don't disagree at all with anything you said as they're all valid points but that isn't the underlying point I was trying to make. Simply - Mikrotik networking equipment isn't common in the UK SOHO and I think that's a shame as I want them to succeed. If Mikrotik don't want to compete in that market segment then that's fine - it's their bat and their ball.

There are many reasons why it's not more common but the main catch-22 is that because the equipment isn't common, it becomes less common. One has to reach critical mass. But it cannot be argued that adoption is hindered by complexity. You said it's more a hobbyist tinkering system which is why I like it. But it is impossible to argue that implementing a cAP ac and router is more complex that buying UBNT UniFi cloud controlled devices. Yes, I hear what people are saying about the risks of cloud but client's don't care.

I pickup a lot of one-off jobs from clients whereby they want to sort out Wi-Fi access in such-and-such a location. I've never come across Mikrotik. Loads of UBNT, TP-Link etc. I don't work for clients with megabucks - if I did I'd be in the "nobody gets fired for installing Cisco" category.

The comment about "try stepping outside basic configuration" is valid except 99% of SOHO customers don't need anything else. They just want a main Wi-Fi network and maybe a guest network. They might want to throttle the later.

CAPsMAN has taken a step backwards IMO with the new wireless stack. I've given up trying to get it working with cAP ac devices with the simple requirement of a separate guest Wi-Fi network on separate VLAN. I really did try...

Cost is another area where the ludicrous cost of living crisis caused by stupid lockdowns (yes I'm a real sceptic about those measures). In the UK, Mikrotik aren't competing on price anymore when the requirement is simple.

All I want is for Mikrotik to take over the networking world :-)

The comment about "try stepping outside basic configuration" is valid except 99% of SOHO customers don't need anything else. They just want a main Wi-Fi network and maybe a guest network. They might want to throttle the later.

Customers want more. Reliability, and monitoring - what's going on with my WiFi (and internet)?. Which means, who is connected, where is connected, what is the bottle-neck, etc,.. Some simple, but human-digestible page.

Also, MikroTik is oriented a lot at "assembly it from basic low-level building blocks" instead of "convention (and defaults) over configuration".

Stretch idea,... It would be nice to have intent based configuration. Or at least speaking in high level logical terms, rather than low level.

• I want to have regular network available on physical ports (... list ..), and on SSID WiFi1, give it VLAN 10,
• I want to have guest network available on physical ports (... list ...), and on SSID WiFi-guest, give it VLAN 20,
• I want my network admin to be available only on 2nd physical port of each router, give it VLAN 30,
• I want to regular network to have access to guest network,
• I want John's gaming server to be available from guest network for his school friends,
• I want WiFi1 to be accessible only by devices I explicitly allow,
• I have Router A connected to WAN on port E1,
• I have AP B connected to Router A on port E2,
• I have AP C connected to Router B on port E3,
• I have Switch D ...
• ... IoT ...
• ... IPTV / security ...

And, the system would produce all VLAN/routing/firewall setup needed to achieve the intents. Including defaults based on convention over configuration, i.e. mDNS repeating, WAN access QoS, etc,... Or, give options to choose from.

Changes to physical topology would correspond to changes in "I have ..." statements, and the low-level config would be rebuilt.

Changes to intents would correspond to changes in "I want ..." statements, and the low-level config would be rebuilt.

And, of course, the generated low level setup/config would be available for inspection. So, professionals can analyze it, prior to execution/deployment of changes. Just, don't need to craft it by hand - tedious, and prone to human errors.

But, well. That's high level description, which means some form of abstractions, which means basing it on some assumptions, and designing and agreeing on the set of high level terms,.. which means, compromises must be made. And, is not so easy, as bad abstractions would cause bad limitations. So, I am not giving high hopes to my "wishing for dream", that such system would exist. But, if it would, it would have been great.

Customers want more. Reliability, and monitoring - what's going on with my WiFi (and internet)?. Which means, who is connected, where is connected, what is the bottle-neck, etc,.. Some simple, but human-digestible page.

I'd say that reliability stands heads and shoulders above all other requirements, followed by performance. Simple set-up at the start and ease of support. Clients just want it to work 24/7 without failure or intevention. Everything else is secondary. Don't forget, I'm talking SOHO set-ups here, not bigger companies - they'll have the budget for the IT costs.

But as a techie, I love RouterOS and the sheer power. I'm currently in the middle of rolling out a Starlink based site consisting of farmhouse, caravan site & permanent lodges. Probably 30+ users wanting to stream Netflix. Before they shared and struggled with a 20MBps (if we were lucky) FTTC connection. Only yesterday did I connect up the farmhouse to the rest of the site. First time in a Cherry Picker installing a Ubiquiti NS-5AC NanoStation wireless bridge from the farmhouse to the rest of the site. Interestingly, I've always used these Nanostations as I've found them dead reliable. Never looked at Mikrotik PtP solutions (should I?).

At the moment, all this is going through a spare hAP ac lite! Impressed it works at all. But already been using the status reports of each interface to look at where the traffic is going and set-up a graphing report to get a better feel of the network.

But that's only really of interest to me. Lots more work to do - replace that hAP ac lite as it's really not up to the job. Plus upgrade some other networking components that are all 100MBps (been in there years).

This isn't your normal SOHO site though.

I hope we get an update from MikroTik on the controller soon and that it uses the new UI/UX style from Winbox 4 :D

Don't push it too hard now... Baby steps, let them polish new winbox first :D

What's special about the new winbox?

Nothing. But gigabyte says, MT should focus on stabilizing and improving Winbox 4 first.

I think that developing several new project's at same time could take too many developer resources at such a small company like MT. Winbox 4 is beta and is going to need a big amount of attention by MT to reach a stable release incorporating all the feedback from community.

As long as it’s nothing more than that: yes.

As long as it’s nothing more than that: yes.

As a Linux user.

WinBox was nothing to me, until it was made available as native Linux app. It's an useful app however, I like sub windows more than tabs in browser, combined with ssh.

Maybe there's nothing special feature wise. But, platform coverage increased, which might or might not be an important aspect in MikroTik's adoption.

One reason why people ask for or need a controller software: viewtopic.php?t=211094

One reason why people ask for or need a controller software: viewtopic.php?t=211094

That would appear to be advertisement for "The Dude" IMO. ;)

The problem in that post is using winbox to view dozens of logs from different routers. That is easily solvable by remote logging to The Dude – today, for free, without any waiting on new software. And, Dude will maintain winbox connections to multiple routers to view config from the map of devices.

While Mikrotik certainly could use a "new controller"... I just think more folk should at least try The Dude as it does some solve a few of the needs of a new controller. It's relatively easily to setup for basic up/down monitoring, centralized logging, and viewing each router's config. The Dude is VERY far from perfect - it does not help at all with config management & doing more "advanced" monitoring/alerting is complex multi-step process. But it actually does more than most people think for status/monitoring & logging.

Seen the screenshots of Dude and I was deeply frightened - I wasn't brave enough to install it. Basically I did not want to find out if it is Wine compatible.

Seen the screenshots of Dude and I was deeply frightened - I wasn't brave enough to install it. Basically I did not want to find out if it is Wine compatible.

What's nice is you don't need the "scary" 32-bit X86 Dude client running all the time... the client just configures the "server package" running on a RouterOS - but it RouterOS that collecting data from monitored devices, not the ancient Dude client.

Additionally, once you create the Dude maps in client, they do show up in webfig as graphics with red/green/etc status as a graphic. So basically if you look at the 1990s UI as just the way to setup the "dude server" and/or view/extract collected data, it may be less scary.

Seen the screenshots of Dude and I was deeply frightened - I wasn't brave enough to install it. Basically I did not want to find out if it is Wine compatible.

What's nice is you don't need the "scary" 32-bit X86 Dude client running all the time... the client just configures the "server package" running on a RouterOS - but it RouterOS that collecting data from monitored devices, not the ancient Dude client.

Additionally, once you create the Dude maps in client, they do show up in webfig as graphics with red/green/etc status. So basically if you view 1990s Win32 UI as just the way to setup the "dude server" and/or view/extract collected data, it may be less scary.

My first device was a Chateau LTE12. This was the first v7 only device IIRC. I had to use v7 beta. The dude was long time not even available for v7. Long time it was the saying that it probably won't ever be v7 compatible. But then it arrived for v7. But still the documentation lives at http://wiki.mikrotik.com/wiki/Manual:The_Dude ("This page was last edited on 10 April 2017, at 07:20."). It was not ported to new docs at https://help.mikrotik.com/docs/. So I always assumed: The Dude is abandoned. It is there for legacy reasons and compatibility but should not be used. So just shrug.

The Dude has always been more or less in that status.
It would be better when it would be released as open source, so MikroTik would not have to work on it anymore and still it could be developed by enthousiast users.

FWIW, Dude client still works on latest MacOS Sequoia + homebrew's wine@devel. Since the client will re-download itself for another version, that even work still (since I connected to v7.16rc4 Dude). To @infabo, the Dude server package fits on a Chateau LTE12 while something like Prometheus/etc may do more, it a lot setup than just checking "enable" and picking a disk in WinBox4: Also for LTE, I wrote up how to setup monitoring of the signal here: viewtopic.php?t=192103&hilit=probe

My only quibbles in years of usage is you cannot "move" a device from one map to another, and perhaps wine's font randomness. Anyway, enough of my sales pitch for The Dude. This whole "new conroller" discussion is frustrating since some minor fixes in Dude would have gone a long way.

p.s. Even the Dude taskbar status icon work on Mac+wine... ... so a +1 to a native app for new controller UI - since these kinda things are possible with a native app vs. some HTML5 console...

Is there any official news about the progress of the project?