4 ms·

IP cameras need their Linksys moment. The hardware has advanced immensely but the software is terrible.

arminiusreturns 6y ago
I highly reccomend Motion, check it out if you haven't. I've ripped out and replaced subpar proprietary vendor crap with it. (keep the cameras depending on model, ditch the included DVR systems) [1] https://motion-project.github.io/ https://motion-project.github.io/
- pedrocr 6y ago
  I've used motion and it's fine as the DVR part with MJPEG cameras. Something else is needed for modern h264/h265/av1 stuff. I've started coding on it a few times but have never gotten it functional. But my point is about the software that runs in the cameras themselves.
- squarefoot 6y ago
  Motion is great, but most (all?) consumer IP cameras and DVRs/NVRs are Swiss cheese security wise, they routinely phone home or make connections with servers in China, some even contain hardcoded passwords etc. so that the only way to use them reliably would involve a firewall only accepting connections from trusted sources while preventing the cameras subnet to send anything to the outside world. What we need is some alternative firmware just like OpenWRT, but aimed at IP cameras. That would be a real challenge, therefore it is probably better to build the IP camera from ground up with security and trust in mind. The PineCube from Pine64 seems a really good step in this direction. Just like their PinePhone, being so hard to liberate an existing phone, it's actually easier to design and produce from scratch one that is really free and open and therefore trustworthy. Some interesting options also from Friendlyarm to make small Linux driven embedded boards with cameras. https://www.friendlyarm.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=70&product_id=245 https://www.friendlyarm.com/index.php?route=product/product&...
  - azinman2 6y ago
    Why isn’t motion + motionEye + raspberry pi just that?

I highly reccomend Motion, check it out if you haven't. I've ripped out and replaced subpar proprietary vendor crap with it. (keep the cameras depending on model, ditch the included DVR systems) [1] https://motion-project.github.io/ https://motion-project.github.io/

pedrocr 6y ago
I've used motion and it's fine as the DVR part with MJPEG cameras. Something else is needed for modern h264/h265/av1 stuff. I've started coding on it a few times but have never gotten it functional. But my point is about the software that runs in the cameras themselves.
squarefoot 6y ago
Motion is great, but most (all?) consumer IP cameras and DVRs/NVRs are Swiss cheese security wise, they routinely phone home or make connections with servers in China, some even contain hardcoded passwords etc. so that the only way to use them reliably would involve a firewall only accepting connections from trusted sources while preventing the cameras subnet to send anything to the outside world. What we need is some alternative firmware just like OpenWRT, but aimed at IP cameras. That would be a real challenge, therefore it is probably better to build the IP camera from ground up with security and trust in mind. The PineCube from Pine64 seems a really good step in this direction. Just like their PinePhone, being so hard to liberate an existing phone, it's actually easier to design and produce from scratch one that is really free and open and therefore trustworthy. Some interesting options also from Friendlyarm to make small Linux driven embedded boards with cameras. https://www.friendlyarm.com/index.php?route=product/product&path=70&product_id=245 https://www.friendlyarm.com/index.php?route=product/product&...
- azinman2 6y ago
  Why isn’t motion + motionEye + raspberry pi just that?