On Wed, Feb 23, 2011 at 9:12 AM, <m.roth@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> Nico Kadel-Garcia wrote:
>> On Tue, Feb 22, 2011 at 9:31 PM, Always Learning <centos@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> On Tue, 2011-02-22 at 18:04 -0800, John R Pierce wrote:
>>>
>>>> TCP/IP cameras would work with any OS, most just FTP or whatever the
>>>> pictures to a webserver you provide, or they run their own server and
>>>> you can wget the pics off them. but I've never seen any IP cameras
>>>> I'd call really cheap. Panasonic makes a nice line of them, some even
>>>> have remote pan/zoom via a http interface.
> <snip>
>> If you want a full-blown remote TCP monitoring system, look at Axis.
>> They're historically very Linux compatible, they have all the features
>> you might want, and while they're not cheap they have all the features
>> you might need.
>
> At work, we use the package motion. Does everything, including writing
> .avi? .asf? files to the home directory which is nsf mounted. Trivial load
> on the network for monitoring.
>
> We've got *really* cheap old webcams. Do see if you can get USB 1.1, not
> 1.0....
>
> mark
Yeah, I know that one. I wrote some of the early RPM's for it. It had
integration issues way back at RedHat 6.2, but has improved a lot
since then.
Amusingly, someone I worked with was insisting, *insisting* that
anything that came out in newer kernels, they could backport to their
modified 2.0.x optimized kernel, because *of course* their patches
were so clever and so important that they could never be ported
forward, a newer kernel could never hope to match it. But good USB and
webcam support was only workable in the 2.2. kernels, backporting it
to 2.0 was ridiculously infeasible. And the "upgrade versus backport
war" was on!!!
We seeing the same things with new features in RHEL/CentOS releases,
such as Samba features and OpenSSH major releases and Bind.
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
