Luxriot Pros/Cons?

[danielsan2222 0]

My research continues....

 

Currently using Milestone XProtect Business(roughly equivanlent to Pro version). After checking out their pricing I am not in the mood to pay what they are charging nowadays. In fact, I would rather not have to use software that is charged per camera (which eliminates most major players I know). I have not decided on which cameras to add yet but it will be a grab bag in the end.

 

That has led me to Luxriot. Pros/Cons?

 

I know it is Windows only(not a problem). It does not appear to support Windows 2000(that sucks). And Windows Server 2008 and 7 are in beta. How is it otherwise? I know there is a free 1 camera license so eventually I might check it out but with so many options out there I would like to narrow the field as much as possible. Thanks.

[Roman 0]

I know it is Windows only(not a problem). It does not appear to support Windows 2000(that sucks). And Windows Server 2008 and 7 are in beta.

 

LuxRiot works fine on Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, Server 2008 and 7.

 

We are removing declaration that Windows 2000 is supported because basically it is a discontinued product, but there have been a great deal of deployments on this OS and versions up to latest are compatible. Just make sure you have latest Win2K Service Pack installed.

[danielsan2222 0]

Thanks for the clarification. Can it run on a 64 bit O/S version?

 

 

I know it is Windows only(not a problem). It does not appear to support Windows 2000(that sucks). And Windows Server 2008 and 7 are in beta.

 

LuxRiot works fine on Windows 2000, XP, Server 2003, Vista, Server 2008 and 7.

 

We are removing declaration that Windows 2000 is supported because basically it is a discontinued product, but there have been a great deal of deployments on this OS and versions up to latest are compatible. Just make sure you have latest Win2K Service Pack installed.

[Roman 0]

Thanks for the clarification. Can it run on a 64 bit O/S version?

 

LuxRiot is currently available as a 32-bit application, both server and client parts. Still it not only runs fine on 64-bit system, but in some cases it makes sense to prefer 64-bit OS, especially for server, as out the box on 64-bit operating system the application gets 4 GB virtual address space available, while on 32-bit OS it is only 2 GB (or 3 GB with /3GB tuning, which LuxRiot is also compatible with). If you have 100+ cameras, or depending on configuration (esp. many megapixel cameras, or software motion detection configurations) you can run out of available 2GB amount.

[robert 0]

I have been selling/installing only Luxriot so far. Its cheap, good enough and I had no huge problems with it. For that price - superb!

 

Yes, Milestone and Avigilon is MUCH better, but sorry, none of my customers were ready to pay sky price for NVR software. I tried, but its just way too much.

[Tiribulus 0]

I can't get Luxriot to work. It keeps saying "operation aborted" or machine "actively refused the connection". This is over a lan. The IP address, port, and credentials are absolutely correct. The client app that came with this cheap outfit doesn't run in XPSP3 though SP2 does work. I was looking for something else that would allow me remote access to the cameras, but it is a real pain getting anything to work. Our old DVR came with netviewer which while basic worked fine even on a USB key with putty. The IE deal is basically useless. I need something I can throw on a key and use with any computer without reconfiguring the machine like I had before.

 

Didn't mean to get off on all that, but if anybody has any suggestions I'm all ears (eyes?). I saw this thread hadn't been posted in for a few days so didn't think it would hurt to sorta hijack it.

Thanks

[robert 0]

I can't get Luxriot to work. It keeps saying "operation aborted" or machine "actively refused the connection".

 

Did you actually start web server? Looks like you havent started it.

[Roman 0]

I can't get Luxriot to work. It keeps saying "operation aborted" or machine "actively refused the connection". This is over a lan. The IP address, port, and credentials are absolutely correct. The client app that came with this cheap outfit doesn't run in XPSP3 though SP2 does work. I was looking for something else that would allow me remote access to the cameras...

The best you can do to send details about the issue to LuxRiot support is to post a problem report, as described there on the blog http://blog.luxriot.com/271#faq2. It is a really easy step by step thing, that gets the details for you and posts it over Internet. Or you can even email it as ZIP attachment instead, if you don't have Internet connectivity on the site.

 

"Operation aborted" looks like configuration LuxRiot problem, "No connection could be made because the target machine actively refused it." is a message from Windows Sockets subsystem which means that an outoging network connection could not be established because remote party rejected. Why and what exactly what refused, a problem report would definitely reveal.

[Tiribulus 0]

I can't get Luxriot to work. It keeps saying "operation aborted" or machine "actively refused the connection".

 

Did you actually start web server? Looks like you havent started it.

 

I'm not sure what you mean. I'm running it as a client inside my lan on the same subnet as the DVR.

[Tiribulus 0]

<<< The best you can do to send details about the issue to LuxRiot support is to post a problem report, as described there on the blog XXXXXXXX. It is a really easy step by step thing, that gets the details for you and posts it over Internet. Or you can even email it as ZIP attachment instead, if you don't have Internet connectivity on the site. >>>

 

I did this, but I was just thinking if this outfit won't run from a usb key without installing it won't help me even if I could get it to work here.

[Tiribulus 0]

It has to be installed. Is there a generic remote viewer app out there that doesn't require installation? Netviewer is like 5 files and worked great with my last setup but even when I trick it by editing the ini file to allow more characters for the username, it still will not let me use a password over 5 and the dvr won't allow less than 6

 

The new version insists on ports over 10,000 and the new DVR only allows to 9999.

[Roman 0]

It has to be installed. Is there a generic remote viewer app out there that doesn't require installation?

 

You are correct, it has to be installed: it has to perform some registration actions, which also require local administrator permissions to be fulfilled, so USB key scenario is currently not possible.

[Tiribulus 0]

Developers of remote viewing/admin apps may want to think about portability. I can't be the only one who finds the ability to stick a usb key in any machine with web access and being able to almost instantly use my cameras useful.

 

Here's a good one. That goofy no name app that came with this outfit created a folder in the root of C: with a copy of itself there. The instructions do not mention this. They say to copy the folder off the cd to anywhere and run it from there. That does not work, but must also create the additional folder. Anyway, I copied that folder, the new one in the root of C: to one of my usb keys and it now runs on any machine from the key where before it wouldn't even run on the machine I originally copied it to, or any of the others. HMMM.

 

Create an SSL tunnel with Putty and run the viewer as localhost and it works from anywhere like I needed. Go figger.

[Roman 0]

Developers of remote viewing/admin apps may want to think about portability. I can't be the only one who finds the ability to stick a usb key in any machine with web access and being able to almost instantly use my cameras useful.

Portable application, such as held on a USB key, is a useful feature, so this undoubtedly makes sense. And we do appreciate feedback of this kind.

Technically there are a few things that prevent from making LuxRiot DVR Client portable immediately, so it is up to development schedule to make this possible in future. Before this however the only option is to install client part of the software as a regular application. Thank you again for the feedback.

[ak357 0]

Developers of remote viewing/admin apps may want to think about portability. I can't be the only one who finds the ability to stick a usb key in any machine with web access and being able to almost instantly use my cameras useful.

Portable application, such as held on a USB key, is a useful feature, so this undoubtedly makes sense. And we do appreciate feedback of this kind.

Technically there are a few things that prevent from making LuxRiot DVR Client portable immediately, so it is up to development schedule to make this possible in future. Before this however the only option is to install client part of the software as a regular application. Thank you again for the feedback.

 

Common Roman

I am sure u know to create portable Apps take few min

I have Adobe Flash 100MB as one file and works great

Please consider to make Clent Portable

[rory 0]

Developers of remote viewing/admin apps may want to think about portability. I can't be the only one who finds the ability to stick a usb key in any machine with web access and being able to almost instantly use my cameras useful.

its not that simple though, well not always.

 

if you have access to the code then its easier, but still time consuming. also, if the software needs .net or sql server then you need to install that, takes time, if its vista or win 7, it could need special folders to run from and other rights that it didnt need in xp, if its linux or mac it needs wine, or for the developer to learn a totally different language and to move over to those OS to develop on. So yeah in addition to other issues the code itself may need to be rewritten to work like that. A big company though could afford to do that ... smaller companies its not normally worth it unless most of their users would use that feature.

[Roman 0]

Common Roman

I am sure u know to create portable Apps take few min

I have Adobe Flash 100MB as one file and works great

Please consider to make Clent Portable

 

That would look as if we just don't want to do this, but it is not the case

 

99% of the application has nothing to do with portabilty and is just OK for both regular and portable scenarios. There are still a few moments that rely on integration with operating system, and assume the components are installed and registered with the system (such as for example codecs, which are registered with Windows APIs, used through them for interoperability and also make available footage for third party apps). This is exactly the problem for a portable version. Doable, but needs be done before it starts working great, just like Adobe's 100 MB Flash

 

This is where we need feedback to upvote the feature and understand the priority.

[ak357 0]

99% of the application has nothing to do with portabilty and is just OK for both regular and portable scenarios. There are still a few moments that rely on integration with operating system, and assume the components are installed and registered with the system (such as for example codecs, which are registered with Windows APIs, used through them for interoperability and also make available footage for third party apps). This is exactly the problem for a portable version. Doable, but needs be done before it starts working great, just like Adobe's 100 MB Flash

 

I had impression that

applications will be packed into a virtual environment, a sandbox, which contains all necessary information such as registry entries and applications’ DLL files and so on...

 

Right ?

did not try Luxriot for long time so I don't know what u have

but do u have standalone Client I can download ?

[thewireguys 3]

Does anyone have a demo?

[Tiribulus 0]

By "portability", I was referring mainly for windows machines as they are everywhere. Certainly a full featured outfit like Luxriot would be a nightmare if not impossible to write for portability. However, most people wouldn't need or expect much more than a bare bones feature set in a portable remote viewer.

 

I doubt if this small suite I'm using now was even written with portability in mind. It's just works that way by accident because it's cheap, but it DOES work. Any windows machine in the world and I can start an SSL tunnel with PUTTY, which is also portable (and free) and run this rinky dink suite as localhost and there are my cameras.

 

I can switch between camera views, adjust color, brightness etc. for each one, record over the net, convert to AVI, view existing recordings, save them locally, the main things people would care about in a portable app. The whole thing is 6 megs and a little change.

 

It might be worth considering a portable version that's included with the main full featured version, but separate. A segment in the install routine that asks if you want to dump the files in a folder that can be copied to an external device for portable use or something.

 

I stuck the package that I've been talking about HERE if anybody wants to take a look. It doesn't even have a name.

[rory 0]

Yeah but the main reason that is working is that XP contains most of the dependencies it requires. You may notice if you were to use some verisons of vista that they removed some components from that OS and in many cases apps wont always work like that. A professional app that someone sells will typically always provide an installer.

[ak357 0]

Does anyone have a demo?

 

Demo of what ? Luxriot ?

[Tiribulus 0]

Yeah but the main reason that is working is that XP contains most of the dependencies it requires. You may notice if you were to use some verisons of vista that they removed some components from that OS and in many cases apps wont always work like that. A professional app that someone sells will typically always provide an installer.

I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. I'm just saying that having a fully portable solution has been a godsend for me and unless I'm am one unique individual I thought others would too. Not to sound the wrong way, seriously, but I am very surprised it's not common practice. I joined here originally just to ask what people were doing for this, in essence.

 

I also am no programmer. However, it seems that if some probably back room bargain development outfit can make something like this work for XP without even trying that a fully staffed and funded development team could do it for Vista and Seven on purpose even if it wound up being quite a bit bigger. I mean VLC runs in both as a no install portable and it can stream remote video in a couple dozen codecs and containers and weighs in at 30 megs.

 

I'm new here and not trying to be an @$$, sincerely, I'm jist thinkin out loud.

[rory 0]

I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. I'm just saying that having a fully portable solution has been a godsend for me and unless I'm am one unique individual I thought others would too. Not to sound the wrong way, seriously, but I am very surprised it's not common practice. I joined here originally just to ask what people were doing for this, in essence.

 

I also am no programmer. However, it seems that if some probably back room bargain development outfit can make something like this work for XP without even trying that a fully staffed and funded development team could do it for Vista and Seven on purpose even if it wound up being quite a bit bigger. I mean VLC runs in both as a no install portable and it can stream remote video in a couple dozen codecs and containers and weighs in at 30 megs.

 

I'm new here and not trying to be an @$$, sincerely, I'm jist thinkin out loud.

 

True, no worries. However that app you posted the link to is not a portable app. I just tried to run it on a stripped down version of XP i use for my DVRs and I got 3 fatal errors and it wont run. Basically missing DLLs and such that would be part of a feature of Windows XP that i remove. However if it had an installer, those dependencies would be installed and it would run fine, as Ive not had a problem with any other apps yet, infact it is used as a GeoVision DVR server.

 

Alot of my own apps on my site run stand alone (note not portable) without an installer, on XP, but I realize the risk of them not working on every system is very clear and would never advertise them as portable, nor would I sell them as such (they are free apps anyway).

[Tiribulus 0]

I'm not trying to tell anybody what to do. I'm just saying that having a fully portable solution has been a godsend for me and unless I'm am one unique individual I thought others would too. Not to sound the wrong way, seriously, but I am very surprised it's not common practice. I joined here originally just to ask what people were doing for this, in essence.

 

I also am no programmer. However, it seems that if some probably back room bargain development outfit can make something like this work for XP without even trying that a fully staffed and funded development team could do it for Vista and Seven on purpose even if it wound up being quite a bit bigger. I mean VLC runs in both as a no install portable and it can stream remote video in a couple dozen codecs and containers and weighs in at 30 megs.

 

I'm new here and not trying to be an @$$, sincerely, I'm jist thinkin out loud.

 

True, no worries. However that app you posted the link to is not a portable app. I just tried to run it on a stripped down version of XP i use for my DVRs and I got 3 fatal errors and it wont run. Basically missing DLLs and such that would be part of a feature of Windows XP that i remove. However if it had an installer, those dependencies would be installed and it would run fine, as Ive not had a problem with any other apps yet, infact it is used as a GeoVision DVR server.

 

Alot of my own apps on my site run stand alone (note not portable) without an installer, on XP, but I realize the risk of them not working on every system is very clear and would never advertise them as portable, nor would I sell them as such (they are free apps anyway).

This is the mystery I was talking about a few posts ago. Look in the root of C: for a dir named "bxs_client_0709" or something like that and try to run it from there now. If you copy that folder to any other XP machine it will run and function. I've tried on 5 or 6 now. Don't ask me what's up with that new folder, the instructions which are included in the package as a PDF file make no mention of it. I stumbled over it by accident.