Centralized IP Camera Monitoring

[rory 0]

yeah that is true...alot of clicking to get the activeX installed, or using FireFox, no ActiveX at all ... I still cant find the way to get my app to connect to the KalatelDVRs .. no java support yet.

 

IE though you can set it up to always allow ActiveX from a certain IP .. but still .. I like the extra security though. Ive tested it over several well known worm infested sites (wont name them) and so far so good.

 

thing is, Windows Update from the start button if done manually, requires IE still...

Edited December 21, 2004 by Guest

[IPSecurityPro 0]

My point exactly. It is done right in an IE browser and this is not the fastest or easiest way. It is the most efficient and practical way, at this point, as this is the most common browser most of the world uses. There are cetrain "issues" with being cross-browser compatibe that go beyond what has been stated.

[rory 0]

right off subject, darn, first it was months of the peterson case, now its the blake case, what is with the news these days! Do viewers really care about these people and their court cases?

[Thomas 0]

Active X is dying. Weither or not Firefox or Opera or your browser choice becomes the worlds primary browser, ActiveX is dying. It's a massive security hole that is built in to the OS. Building a program around it just means you'll have to rebuild that app later.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

Again - opinions of a competitor! ActiveX is not dying!

[WirelessEye 0]

I am developing a product. I'm developing software. There is no financial gain in it for me. If you use it fine, if you don't, fine.

 

Coding to standards is not overrated. It is the only way the web can be standardized. The reason that some things work in some browsers, and not in others is because of standards. The reason for slow web apps is because they don't validate. Validating code means it is error/problem free, thus freeing up the browser from having to translate it based upon a guess at what the developer was going after.

 

Aside from that, in the past 10 years, you are right IE usage stats are totally higher than all the other browsers combined. At the same time, you still have to reach as much of an audience as possible, and believe me, large corporations are the last to update their old browsers. (especially if they have an older IT staff). So guess what now you have an app that is completely useless to 10-15% of browsers.

 

BTW- The reason everything works in IE is because it is not up to standards like opera and mozilla, thus it is very forgiving with code. Hell, you don't even have to close html tags in most cases.

[IPSecurityPro 0]

No financial gain. Wow you are too altruistic.

 

I do not disagree with some of your points of view, but you are far off base with others. Others - I simply do not understand, as I am just a common user and not a programmer or "Engineer". Again - as most consumers - I just know what works and tend to utilize what gives me the least troubles.

 

I'd rather reach 95% of the browsers/users out there than reach 100% and have nothing but headaches, support tickets and troubles.

 

Good luck with your endeavor, hopefully there will be some "...financial gain..." at some point.

[Thomas 0]

Active X is dying. Even MS is starting to acknowage that it's a massive security hole. The FBI, Homeland Security, Cern..How many govermental departments need to recomend against using it for you to see other wise ?

[rory 0]

Actually, most web apps are slow because of bad coding on the application level, bad database connections or coding to connect to them, etc. If at all possible yes always make sure HTML is perfect also, since you are spending the time on making the code perfect which takes longer anyway, might as well make sure all CSS etc is good also. Im writing a web app now (almost complete) in asp that loads super fast, main thing is it uses cacheing so it just pumps out html and no code, no hitting a database, only once every 2 weeks as it is not updated much, or when the server is restarted. The whole site is basically in the database files, and some custom template files. There is even a web design app on the back end lets you change everything about the way each page looks, form builders, etc. No active X, no Java, just server side vbscript in classes.

[Thomas 0]

You using the .Net stuff?

[rory 0]

You using the .Net stuff?

 

Nope, I like to make my own functions .... Visual Basic Class Files within classic ASP, kind of like the source code for an active X. Its also done like this so others can resuse it with no knowledge of ASP or anything else, just by changing the main variables passed to the class. Other that that everything else is done in the database, which ill write a VB GUI program for also, as well as the current back end web app.

 

It wont be free, but when they get it they get all the source code and can do what they want. Later ill rewrite it in .NET just for kicks. Its designed to work within .NET also, with less changes having to be done. I was going to write it as a COM but then some hosting companies would not install it, that was one way for sure to secure the code, but ...

 

For new coders Id definately recommend learning .NET though .. easier.

 

Rory

[IPSecurityPro 0]

I'm sure you can reference some articles directly from these agenceies, as well...

 

http://www.newsfactor.com/story.xhtml?story_id=25675

 

I can reference specific articles that recommend against other browsers, but it is a mute point - there are such things as patches and updates/fixes and there can be vulnerabilities in anything on the web - especially when it is the most widely utilized.

[rory 0]

If you havent updated windows XP to SP2 then you are also very vulnerable, and dont know how much it matters, but I always turn off Remote Assistance and all the other Remote Services, and any sharing of anything, and never use the built in FTP or any other at that.

[WirelessEye 0]

I figure I'm developing it for our use. Since I have to go to the trouble, perhaps others will be saved from the experience. As far as cross-browser capabilities, there would be no trouble tickets if it's developed correctly... thanks for the well wishes, perhaps it will be a flop and no one will use it, either way it'll be there.

 

Rory, yes it is true that bad architecture creates much more of a slow down on web apps than html, but since I can't see the code on their windows app, I can only criticize what I can see. You really should start your app in .Net since you are having difficulties in distributing your COM object. (understandably). In .Net, as I'm sure you know, the code is compiled and you can run it on any .Net server without any network admins shaking their finger at you. And yes .Net is MUCH easer. =)

[rory 0]

all within time Trying to get the cameras off the ground first, then Ill have more time to spend on moving over to .NET. .. I actually think I can connect to the cameras using a COM and Server.CreateObject, I did that before, will see what happens. If I remember, there were limitations as to features which is why I went with the ActiveX Object instead. GE's browser software installed on the DVRs HDD, uses Client Side VBScript, talk about a one browser app! That said, I wonder if it couldnt be done in Client/Server Side Javascript ..anyway, will look into that further. I prefer server side over client side where possible though ..

 

Rory

[Thomas 0]

The only thing to watch for in .Net is that it caches the page and saves the cache to machine and it can make it a bear to upgrade.

 

One thing to keep in mind. The people pushing for I.P. cameras tend to be IT staff. IT staff are more likely to be using a browser that isn't IE.

[WirelessEye 0]

Thomas, very true, many IT savvy folks have switched to Mozilla.

 

Rory, does GE have a good SDK? I'm using Axis 241Q's and the SDK is pretty decent, and it gives you the option of Java, ActiveX or Javascript Updated Image.

 

I'm actually looking to replace our Axis servers with a mini IP-enabled DVR for on-site redundancy of recording, in case a wireless link goes down for an hour for example. Have you seen any of these "mini-dvr" devices? I saw FFV.com has something close, but they aren't IP and they only have Sony protocols.

[rory 0]

Hi

 

they dont actually have an SDK, its just an ActiveX Control and you have to basically figure out the rest on your own, took me a while! I got it from them long before GE bought out Kalatel. There is no support for it also. But you can do quite a bit with it considering the limitations. If you want, download my software on my site and PM me for an IP to test to see what you can do with it, there is also more that can be done but I just never got around to writing it in.

 

http://www.bahamassecurity.com/ms/download.asp

 

Works on 98, ME, and XP (and SP2) (also 2000 supposedly)

 

rory

Edited December 23, 2004 by Guest

[rory 0]

only small DVR I have used is the DSR-1000e from GE, its a single channel with LAN. Its pretty small, not micro though like those really small ones.

 

Rory