<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_12_15_166244</id>
	<title>What Is the State of Linux Security DVR Software?</title>
	<author>timothy</author>
	<datestamp>1260895860000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>StonyCreekBare writes <i>"I am wondering what slashdotters have to offer on the idea of Linux based security systems, especially DVR software.  I am aware of <a href="http://www.zoneminder.com/">Zoneminder</a>, but wonder what else is out there?  Are there applications that will not only monitor video cameras, but motion sensors and contact closure alarms?  What is state of the art in this area, and how do the various Linux platforms stack up in comparison to dedicated embedded solutions?  Will these 'play nice' with other software, such as Asterisk, and Misterhouse?  Can one server host three or four services applications of this nature, assuming CPU/memory/disk resources are sufficient?"</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>StonyCreekBare writes " I am wondering what slashdotters have to offer on the idea of Linux based security systems , especially DVR software .
I am aware of Zoneminder , but wonder what else is out there ?
Are there applications that will not only monitor video cameras , but motion sensors and contact closure alarms ?
What is state of the art in this area , and how do the various Linux platforms stack up in comparison to dedicated embedded solutions ?
Will these 'play nice ' with other software , such as Asterisk , and Misterhouse ?
Can one server host three or four services applications of this nature , assuming CPU/memory/disk resources are sufficient ?
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>StonyCreekBare writes "I am wondering what slashdotters have to offer on the idea of Linux based security systems, especially DVR software.
I am aware of Zoneminder, but wonder what else is out there?
Are there applications that will not only monitor video cameras, but motion sensors and contact closure alarms?
What is state of the art in this area, and how do the various Linux platforms stack up in comparison to dedicated embedded solutions?
Will these 'play nice' with other software, such as Asterisk, and Misterhouse?
Can one server host three or four services applications of this nature, assuming CPU/memory/disk resources are sufficient?
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182</id>
	<title>Ive tried them all</title>
	<author>Lumpy</author>
	<datestamp>1260900240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zoneminder hands down is the best.  I have tried several commercial apps and the couple of windows OSS/freeware ones and a linux box with zoneminder kicks their butt IF you have good hardware.   If you thin you want to use the $9.95 ebay copies of the typical BT878 cards you will be in for pain and suffering..  Get a good 120fps 4 channel card and you will be very happy.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zoneminder hands down is the best .
I have tried several commercial apps and the couple of windows OSS/freeware ones and a linux box with zoneminder kicks their butt IF you have good hardware .
If you thin you want to use the $ 9.95 ebay copies of the typical BT878 cards you will be in for pain and suffering.. Get a good 120fps 4 channel card and you will be very happy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zoneminder hands down is the best.
I have tried several commercial apps and the couple of windows OSS/freeware ones and a linux box with zoneminder kicks their butt IF you have good hardware.
If you thin you want to use the $9.95 ebay copies of the typical BT878 cards you will be in for pain and suffering..  Get a good 120fps 4 channel card and you will be very happy.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447336</id>
	<title>Re:Zoneminder</title>
	<author>MadCow-ard</author>
	<datestamp>1260903840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This is a solid recommendation, but I don't really agree.  Zoneminder has nice features, and it a long way towards a real DVR, but it is still a home-grown solution.  If you are a private home, or a very small business I would still recommend one of the very cheap embedded DVR systems available.  You can find 4-8 camera systems for under $250 USD which are still quasi professional grade.  You'll still need cameras, power supply, mounts and maybe housings.  If you are wanting a bit of fun tinkering with your linux CCTV system then ZoneMinder is your solution.  If you're serious about security, Zoneminder still needs a few years and probably a serious round of funding before you should choose it.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a solid recommendation , but I do n't really agree .
Zoneminder has nice features , and it a long way towards a real DVR , but it is still a home-grown solution .
If you are a private home , or a very small business I would still recommend one of the very cheap embedded DVR systems available .
You can find 4-8 camera systems for under $ 250 USD which are still quasi professional grade .
You 'll still need cameras , power supply , mounts and maybe housings .
If you are wanting a bit of fun tinkering with your linux CCTV system then ZoneMinder is your solution .
If you 're serious about security , Zoneminder still needs a few years and probably a serious round of funding before you should choose it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a solid recommendation, but I don't really agree.
Zoneminder has nice features, and it a long way towards a real DVR, but it is still a home-grown solution.
If you are a private home, or a very small business I would still recommend one of the very cheap embedded DVR systems available.
You can find 4-8 camera systems for under $250 USD which are still quasi professional grade.
You'll still need cameras, power supply, mounts and maybe housings.
If you are wanting a bit of fun tinkering with your linux CCTV system then ZoneMinder is your solution.
If you're serious about security, Zoneminder still needs a few years and probably a serious round of funding before you should choose it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447818</id>
	<title>Don't get burned</title>
	<author>JackDW</author>
	<datestamp>1260906000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you buy a security DVR system that is <i>not</i> based on free software, <i>be very careful to check what you are buying</i>. Check the software requirements very carefully. If it "requires Internet Explorer", find out why this is.

</p><p>Many (most?) of the proprietary DVRs use ActiveX controls for remote access. These typically work only with IE6, so not only do you have to use Windows, but an old version at that. And no, this won't ever be fixed. <i>You'll have to carry on using Windows 2000/XP for the lifetime of your DVR.</i> Don't upgrade to IE7, because that will lock you out of the system.

</p><p>I know of at least one person who was burned by this, and last year I spent some weeks trying to find a commercial DVR solution that <i>didn't</i> require ActiveX, without success. Zoneminder is miles ahead of the commercial systems in this regard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you buy a security DVR system that is not based on free software , be very careful to check what you are buying .
Check the software requirements very carefully .
If it " requires Internet Explorer " , find out why this is .
Many ( most ?
) of the proprietary DVRs use ActiveX controls for remote access .
These typically work only with IE6 , so not only do you have to use Windows , but an old version at that .
And no , this wo n't ever be fixed .
You 'll have to carry on using Windows 2000/XP for the lifetime of your DVR .
Do n't upgrade to IE7 , because that will lock you out of the system .
I know of at least one person who was burned by this , and last year I spent some weeks trying to find a commercial DVR solution that did n't require ActiveX , without success .
Zoneminder is miles ahead of the commercial systems in this regard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you buy a security DVR system that is not based on free software, be very careful to check what you are buying.
Check the software requirements very carefully.
If it "requires Internet Explorer", find out why this is.
Many (most?
) of the proprietary DVRs use ActiveX controls for remote access.
These typically work only with IE6, so not only do you have to use Windows, but an old version at that.
And no, this won't ever be fixed.
You'll have to carry on using Windows 2000/XP for the lifetime of your DVR.
Don't upgrade to IE7, because that will lock you out of the system.
I know of at least one person who was burned by this, and last year I spent some weeks trying to find a commercial DVR solution that didn't require ActiveX, without success.
Zoneminder is miles ahead of the commercial systems in this regard.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449274</id>
	<title>Re:Ive tried them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260869280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Excatly, I use AXIS IP cameras for anything new and they work fantastic.  I have 8 analog cameras for places wher you cant buy the IP camera that can do what the analogs can do.   (0.0007Lux in color, underwater, etc....)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Excatly , I use AXIS IP cameras for anything new and they work fantastic .
I have 8 analog cameras for places wher you cant buy the IP camera that can do what the analogs can do .
( 0.0007Lux in color , underwater , etc.... )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Excatly, I use AXIS IP cameras for anything new and they work fantastic.
I have 8 analog cameras for places wher you cant buy the IP camera that can do what the analogs can do.
(0.0007Lux in color, underwater, etc....)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450172</id>
	<title>Well Paid IT jobs!</title>
	<author>MadCow-ard</author>
	<datestamp>1260873120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>As I have been commenting on this post, I have realized I should have said this years ago on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.  There are well paid jobs in Security for the IT savvy.  I'm talking more for network admins, and general IT skills then programming, but progamming is also needed.  The whole multi-billion dollar Seucurity industry is moving quickly into software based, network infrastructure and away from stand alone systems.  Its been happening for the last 10 years but it is now accellerating.  There is a especially strong need for customer facing technical sales support. People who can design robust Video and Access Control systems which transport TB's of data across local and wide networks.  Integration of building management and other sub and super systems is also key, but most of the integration is minimal programming, more like some scripts and good network know-how.

<br> <br>And don't, REPEAT don't try to fake security knowledge.  They'll teach you.  Tell them your IT background and tell them you want to learn.
<br> <br>
I really suggest to everyone here looking for work to contact a large security Integrator or Manufacturer in your area.  Tyco, UTI, Honeywell, March Networks, Pelco, Verint, Genetec, ONSSI, Bosch, Siemens, Panasonic, Sony and many others have locations close to you.
<br> <br>
Good Luck!</htmltext>
<tokenext>As I have been commenting on this post , I have realized I should have said this years ago on / .
There are well paid jobs in Security for the IT savvy .
I 'm talking more for network admins , and general IT skills then programming , but progamming is also needed .
The whole multi-billion dollar Seucurity industry is moving quickly into software based , network infrastructure and away from stand alone systems .
Its been happening for the last 10 years but it is now accellerating .
There is a especially strong need for customer facing technical sales support .
People who can design robust Video and Access Control systems which transport TB 's of data across local and wide networks .
Integration of building management and other sub and super systems is also key , but most of the integration is minimal programming , more like some scripts and good network know-how .
And do n't , REPEAT do n't try to fake security knowledge .
They 'll teach you .
Tell them your IT background and tell them you want to learn .
I really suggest to everyone here looking for work to contact a large security Integrator or Manufacturer in your area .
Tyco , UTI , Honeywell , March Networks , Pelco , Verint , Genetec , ONSSI , Bosch , Siemens , Panasonic , Sony and many others have locations close to you .
Good Luck !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>As I have been commenting on this post, I have realized I should have said this years ago on /.
There are well paid jobs in Security for the IT savvy.
I'm talking more for network admins, and general IT skills then programming, but progamming is also needed.
The whole multi-billion dollar Seucurity industry is moving quickly into software based, network infrastructure and away from stand alone systems.
Its been happening for the last 10 years but it is now accellerating.
There is a especially strong need for customer facing technical sales support.
People who can design robust Video and Access Control systems which transport TB's of data across local and wide networks.
Integration of building management and other sub and super systems is also key, but most of the integration is minimal programming, more like some scripts and good network know-how.
And don't, REPEAT don't try to fake security knowledge.
They'll teach you.
Tell them your IT background and tell them you want to learn.
I really suggest to everyone here looking for work to contact a large security Integrator or Manufacturer in your area.
Tyco, UTI, Honeywell, March Networks, Pelco, Verint, Genetec, ONSSI, Bosch, Siemens, Panasonic, Sony and many others have locations close to you.
Good Luck!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448734</id>
	<title>Re:Zoneminder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260909780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>what?  state of the art?  hehe...</p><p>take a peak at OnSSI.com, then take a peak at intransa's video appliance.</p><p>Not for linux, but Zoneminder is no place near quality DVR software used these days.   Does it even have analytics yet?</p><p>Let me know what you think.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>what ?
state of the art ?
hehe...take a peak at OnSSI.com , then take a peak at intransa 's video appliance.Not for linux , but Zoneminder is no place near quality DVR software used these days .
Does it even have analytics yet ? Let me know what you think .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>what?
state of the art?
hehe...take a peak at OnSSI.com, then take a peak at intransa's video appliance.Not for linux, but Zoneminder is no place near quality DVR software used these days.
Does it even have analytics yet?Let me know what you think.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30582972</id>
	<title>Re:I rolled my own</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1262107740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>you should open source it!</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>you should open source it !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>you should open source it!</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448030</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30469720</id>
	<title>Re:DVRUSA.COM backdoor</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259694060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We have an LX-8000, running two 8-channel cards. I found a backdoor into the box by nosing around after reloading it. I called their phone support guy (two years ago), who confirmed it was a hole into that system. Google has shown me other Hawkeye DVR systems online. I was able to access (and changed nothing) to those Hawkeye DVR system quite easily. I have had to reinstall from the Fedora CDs, and the vendor's install disk and determined the install script puts the backdoor into place. All passwords were also stored in plain text. For the owners, login as root, dig around the var www html directory for a 10 letter directory. The HTML login for that directory's user/password is 8 letters long, (Hint is on line 3). Our newer DVRUSA system does not have the username/password so simple, but i still removed the 10-lettered folder anyway. - The product is straight forward and simple enough for two computer-scared people to use it as needed. Staying anonymous if possible.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have an LX-8000 , running two 8-channel cards .
I found a backdoor into the box by nosing around after reloading it .
I called their phone support guy ( two years ago ) , who confirmed it was a hole into that system .
Google has shown me other Hawkeye DVR systems online .
I was able to access ( and changed nothing ) to those Hawkeye DVR system quite easily .
I have had to reinstall from the Fedora CDs , and the vendor 's install disk and determined the install script puts the backdoor into place .
All passwords were also stored in plain text .
For the owners , login as root , dig around the var www html directory for a 10 letter directory .
The HTML login for that directory 's user/password is 8 letters long , ( Hint is on line 3 ) .
Our newer DVRUSA system does not have the username/password so simple , but i still removed the 10-lettered folder anyway .
- The product is straight forward and simple enough for two computer-scared people to use it as needed .
Staying anonymous if possible .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We have an LX-8000, running two 8-channel cards.
I found a backdoor into the box by nosing around after reloading it.
I called their phone support guy (two years ago), who confirmed it was a hole into that system.
Google has shown me other Hawkeye DVR systems online.
I was able to access (and changed nothing) to those Hawkeye DVR system quite easily.
I have had to reinstall from the Fedora CDs, and the vendor's install disk and determined the install script puts the backdoor into place.
All passwords were also stored in plain text.
For the owners, login as root, dig around the var www html directory for a 10 letter directory.
The HTML login for that directory's user/password is 8 letters long, (Hint is on line 3).
Our newer DVRUSA system does not have the username/password so simple, but i still removed the 10-lettered folder anyway.
- The product is straight forward and simple enough for two computer-scared people to use it as needed.
Staying anonymous if possible.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446692</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449914</id>
	<title>Re:Ive tried them all</title>
	<author>DKolendo</author>
	<datestamp>1260872100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a couple of the cheapy D-Link DCS-920 Wireless IP Camera's both work great with ZM.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a couple of the cheapy D-Link DCS-920 Wireless IP Camera 's both work great with ZM .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a couple of the cheapy D-Link DCS-920 Wireless IP Camera's both work great with ZM.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447444</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30451890</id>
	<title>not a big fan of zoneminder.  motion ftw!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260880740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zoneminder has what I consider nice "marketing".  The website is relatively easy to navigate, the package is simple enough to install and the ui is easy enough to use without having to read a manual.  I donated a couple hundred quid when I first started using it.</p><p>I deployed and used zoneminder in retail settings for a couple of years.  The hardware was middle of the road, but the combination of 4 cameras recording at only at 3-6 fps and having constant motion (thus triggering events and recording) 12 hours a day/7 days a week made the system unusable.  The use of mysql as the database to store millions of events caused the entire system to thrash disk nonstop once some threshold was reached.  ugh.  In practice, the UI makes trying to find a time or event an exercise in frustration.</p><p>I switched to motion http://www.lavrsen.dk/twiki/bin/view/Motion/WebHome and haven't looked back.  The motion package is not as easy to setup, nor is there a nice gui out of the box.  My motion system is a custom mishmash of scripts that allow me to quickly access the day/time and camera as needed.  I can even view the realtime images remotely using the built-in http server.  There appear to be gui front-ends for the system, but I haven't used them, to be honest.</p><p>Now the disk never thrashes, the cpu usage is less than 20\% versus regular 100\% pegging by zm.  And best of all, motion can save directly to video files, whereas zm had to save jpegs, then run a process to convert to video (this may have changed by now, since it's been a while since I've even looked at zm).</p><p>With some time and programming you can combine motion with some external sensors (2-wire) and have some pretty sophisticated home grown monitoring.</p><p>In my experience zm is only suitable for low freqency events and light duty applications.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zoneminder has what I consider nice " marketing " .
The website is relatively easy to navigate , the package is simple enough to install and the ui is easy enough to use without having to read a manual .
I donated a couple hundred quid when I first started using it.I deployed and used zoneminder in retail settings for a couple of years .
The hardware was middle of the road , but the combination of 4 cameras recording at only at 3-6 fps and having constant motion ( thus triggering events and recording ) 12 hours a day/7 days a week made the system unusable .
The use of mysql as the database to store millions of events caused the entire system to thrash disk nonstop once some threshold was reached .
ugh. In practice , the UI makes trying to find a time or event an exercise in frustration.I switched to motion http : //www.lavrsen.dk/twiki/bin/view/Motion/WebHome and have n't looked back .
The motion package is not as easy to setup , nor is there a nice gui out of the box .
My motion system is a custom mishmash of scripts that allow me to quickly access the day/time and camera as needed .
I can even view the realtime images remotely using the built-in http server .
There appear to be gui front-ends for the system , but I have n't used them , to be honest.Now the disk never thrashes , the cpu usage is less than 20 \ % versus regular 100 \ % pegging by zm .
And best of all , motion can save directly to video files , whereas zm had to save jpegs , then run a process to convert to video ( this may have changed by now , since it 's been a while since I 've even looked at zm ) .With some time and programming you can combine motion with some external sensors ( 2-wire ) and have some pretty sophisticated home grown monitoring.In my experience zm is only suitable for low freqency events and light duty applications .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zoneminder has what I consider nice "marketing".
The website is relatively easy to navigate, the package is simple enough to install and the ui is easy enough to use without having to read a manual.
I donated a couple hundred quid when I first started using it.I deployed and used zoneminder in retail settings for a couple of years.
The hardware was middle of the road, but the combination of 4 cameras recording at only at 3-6 fps and having constant motion (thus triggering events and recording) 12 hours a day/7 days a week made the system unusable.
The use of mysql as the database to store millions of events caused the entire system to thrash disk nonstop once some threshold was reached.
ugh.  In practice, the UI makes trying to find a time or event an exercise in frustration.I switched to motion http://www.lavrsen.dk/twiki/bin/view/Motion/WebHome and haven't looked back.
The motion package is not as easy to setup, nor is there a nice gui out of the box.
My motion system is a custom mishmash of scripts that allow me to quickly access the day/time and camera as needed.
I can even view the realtime images remotely using the built-in http server.
There appear to be gui front-ends for the system, but I haven't used them, to be honest.Now the disk never thrashes, the cpu usage is less than 20\% versus regular 100\% pegging by zm.
And best of all, motion can save directly to video files, whereas zm had to save jpegs, then run a process to convert to video (this may have changed by now, since it's been a while since I've even looked at zm).With some time and programming you can combine motion with some external sensors (2-wire) and have some pretty sophisticated home grown monitoring.In my experience zm is only suitable for low freqency events and light duty applications.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30454796</id>
	<title>What exactly do you need ? (Integration wise)</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259699820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a very important question.</p><p>Some examples of systems that have been implemented include<br>1) IAX Call point software, with call logging to details to MySQL, that will automatically connect to a DVR system and obtain video footage remotely (saving as a BLOB in the DB) over the internet for the duration of the call, from 1 or more cameras located at the call point.<br>From there, there is front end software (php, and GTK#) that allows viewing footage, playing the phone call, and viewing data related to the call.<br>(I have done this with both a standalone DVR, and a Linux PC Based DVR System).</p><p>2) IO Triggering for Tilt sensors fitted to poker machines, that will send PTZ commands via RS485 to cruise or call preset positions, record audio on inputs, initiate remote connections, and all that jazz</p><p>3) Analytics, object tracking, facial recognition.</p><p>4) Digital (True Video over IP - Megapixel stuff), or analogue video</p><p>5) Is this for an I.T. Shop, end users that have NFI about security, or yourself. (VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION !!!!)<br>Once you have worked out these requirements, then and only then can you say that one package is better than another.</p><p>I have used the comart Sentry24 stuff before. (The latest version has SIP support for audio).<br>Not very bleeding edge, but very end user friendly.<br>Zoneminder is good if the system is for yourself, not very good if the system is to be sold to someone else. (Guess who is going to support it !)</p><p>Now days though, the problem with Linux Based PC DVR systems that I have found is<br>1) Reliability, Get yourself good quality components, lots of fans, and a big power supply. (DVRs tend to be mounted in dusty hot areas, capacitors dry out, things tend to go wrong)<br>2) Cost ! I can get Linux based standalone systems, that are more user friendly than most linux systems, that support IO, RS-485, PTZ, Bi Audio, 16Channels, 200fps PAL, Remote view CMS clients for Windows and Linux, for the cost of a decent 16Channel 200fps Capture card for a PC (Phillips Chipset not brooktree crap), add the cost of a decent PC, and well, you get the idea...</p><p>Some of the good standalone DVRs have open protocols for remote viewing, which means you can integrate them with just about anything.</p><p>Hope this helps</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a very important question.Some examples of systems that have been implemented include1 ) IAX Call point software , with call logging to details to MySQL , that will automatically connect to a DVR system and obtain video footage remotely ( saving as a BLOB in the DB ) over the internet for the duration of the call , from 1 or more cameras located at the call point.From there , there is front end software ( php , and GTK # ) that allows viewing footage , playing the phone call , and viewing data related to the call .
( I have done this with both a standalone DVR , and a Linux PC Based DVR System ) .2 ) IO Triggering for Tilt sensors fitted to poker machines , that will send PTZ commands via RS485 to cruise or call preset positions , record audio on inputs , initiate remote connections , and all that jazz3 ) Analytics , object tracking , facial recognition.4 ) Digital ( True Video over IP - Megapixel stuff ) , or analogue video5 ) Is this for an I.T .
Shop , end users that have NFI about security , or yourself .
( VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION ! ! ! !
) Once you have worked out these requirements , then and only then can you say that one package is better than another.I have used the comart Sentry24 stuff before .
( The latest version has SIP support for audio ) .Not very bleeding edge , but very end user friendly.Zoneminder is good if the system is for yourself , not very good if the system is to be sold to someone else .
( Guess who is going to support it !
) Now days though , the problem with Linux Based PC DVR systems that I have found is1 ) Reliability , Get yourself good quality components , lots of fans , and a big power supply .
( DVRs tend to be mounted in dusty hot areas , capacitors dry out , things tend to go wrong ) 2 ) Cost !
I can get Linux based standalone systems , that are more user friendly than most linux systems , that support IO , RS-485 , PTZ , Bi Audio , 16Channels , 200fps PAL , Remote view CMS clients for Windows and Linux , for the cost of a decent 16Channel 200fps Capture card for a PC ( Phillips Chipset not brooktree crap ) , add the cost of a decent PC , and well , you get the idea...Some of the good standalone DVRs have open protocols for remote viewing , which means you can integrate them with just about anything.Hope this helps</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a very important question.Some examples of systems that have been implemented include1) IAX Call point software, with call logging to details to MySQL, that will automatically connect to a DVR system and obtain video footage remotely (saving as a BLOB in the DB) over the internet for the duration of the call, from 1 or more cameras located at the call point.From there, there is front end software (php, and GTK#) that allows viewing footage, playing the phone call, and viewing data related to the call.
(I have done this with both a standalone DVR, and a Linux PC Based DVR System).2) IO Triggering for Tilt sensors fitted to poker machines, that will send PTZ commands via RS485 to cruise or call preset positions, record audio on inputs, initiate remote connections, and all that jazz3) Analytics, object tracking, facial recognition.4) Digital (True Video over IP - Megapixel stuff), or analogue video5) Is this for an I.T.
Shop, end users that have NFI about security, or yourself.
(VERY IMPORTANT QUESTION !!!!
)Once you have worked out these requirements, then and only then can you say that one package is better than another.I have used the comart Sentry24 stuff before.
(The latest version has SIP support for audio).Not very bleeding edge, but very end user friendly.Zoneminder is good if the system is for yourself, not very good if the system is to be sold to someone else.
(Guess who is going to support it !
)Now days though, the problem with Linux Based PC DVR systems that I have found is1) Reliability, Get yourself good quality components, lots of fans, and a big power supply.
(DVRs tend to be mounted in dusty hot areas, capacitors dry out, things tend to go wrong)2) Cost !
I can get Linux based standalone systems, that are more user friendly than most linux systems, that support IO, RS-485, PTZ, Bi Audio, 16Channels, 200fps PAL, Remote view CMS clients for Windows and Linux, for the cost of a decent 16Channel 200fps Capture card for a PC (Phillips Chipset not brooktree crap), add the cost of a decent PC, and well, you get the idea...Some of the good standalone DVRs have open protocols for remote viewing, which means you can integrate them with just about anything.Hope this helps</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449754</id>
	<title>Re:Zoneminder</title>
	<author>tha\_mink</author>
	<datestamp>1260871500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>And for reference, having recently compared many different versions on different operating systems for a project at my company, Zoneminder IS the state of the art in all platforms of DVR software</p></div><p>  Wow.  That's a pretty bold statement.  And completely false BTW. LPR, NPR, Facial recognition, window blanking, etc.  The list is long.<br> <br>
Zoneminder is nice, but let's not get carried away here.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>And for reference , having recently compared many different versions on different operating systems for a project at my company , Zoneminder IS the state of the art in all platforms of DVR software Wow .
That 's a pretty bold statement .
And completely false BTW .
LPR , NPR , Facial recognition , window blanking , etc .
The list is long .
Zoneminder is nice , but let 's not get carried away here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And for reference, having recently compared many different versions on different operating systems for a project at my company, Zoneminder IS the state of the art in all platforms of DVR software  Wow.
That's a pretty bold statement.
And completely false BTW.
LPR, NPR, Facial recognition, window blanking, etc.
The list is long.
Zoneminder is nice, but let's not get carried away here.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450526</id>
	<title>Re:Don't get burned</title>
	<author>LoRdTAW</author>
	<datestamp>1260874500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Good points.</p><p>Another problem I have found with one DVR I setup for a neighbor (forget the model, was linux based though) is the video export function was clumsy and proprietary. At first glance it said on the box you could export video to USB thumb drives or via the built in CD/DVD recorder. Problem is it uses a propriety multi channel video file format that is only works under windows. So when you do export video you get this mess of directories and a windows binary player on your media. Sometimes it didn't play, locked up and had to be killed via task manager. And sometimes it could not read the video file which required it to be exported again.</p><p>That made it very difficult for him when he had an incident with a tenant vandalizing his car. He needed to bring the video down to the police precinct and had to call me and spend 30 min on the phone to help him and the investigator view the video.</p><p>Why couldn't the damn thing just export an avi or mpg file?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Good points.Another problem I have found with one DVR I setup for a neighbor ( forget the model , was linux based though ) is the video export function was clumsy and proprietary .
At first glance it said on the box you could export video to USB thumb drives or via the built in CD/DVD recorder .
Problem is it uses a propriety multi channel video file format that is only works under windows .
So when you do export video you get this mess of directories and a windows binary player on your media .
Sometimes it did n't play , locked up and had to be killed via task manager .
And sometimes it could not read the video file which required it to be exported again.That made it very difficult for him when he had an incident with a tenant vandalizing his car .
He needed to bring the video down to the police precinct and had to call me and spend 30 min on the phone to help him and the investigator view the video.Why could n't the damn thing just export an avi or mpg file ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Good points.Another problem I have found with one DVR I setup for a neighbor (forget the model, was linux based though) is the video export function was clumsy and proprietary.
At first glance it said on the box you could export video to USB thumb drives or via the built in CD/DVD recorder.
Problem is it uses a propriety multi channel video file format that is only works under windows.
So when you do export video you get this mess of directories and a windows binary player on your media.
Sometimes it didn't play, locked up and had to be killed via task manager.
And sometimes it could not read the video file which required it to be exported again.That made it very difficult for him when he had an incident with a tenant vandalizing his car.
He needed to bring the video down to the police precinct and had to call me and spend 30 min on the phone to help him and the investigator view the video.Why couldn't the damn thing just export an avi or mpg file?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447818</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30453642</id>
	<title>Re:Ive tried them all</title>
	<author>tuxicle</author>
	<datestamp>1260894720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>No matter what BT878 card you use, be sure that the case has adequate ventilation. Those chips run hot, and tend to flake out when temps rise too high. I've seen many forum postings advising the use of glue-on heatsinks. I've done that, as well as put extra fans in the server case.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No matter what BT878 card you use , be sure that the case has adequate ventilation .
Those chips run hot , and tend to flake out when temps rise too high .
I 've seen many forum postings advising the use of glue-on heatsinks .
I 've done that , as well as put extra fans in the server case .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No matter what BT878 card you use, be sure that the case has adequate ventilation.
Those chips run hot, and tend to flake out when temps rise too high.
I've seen many forum postings advising the use of glue-on heatsinks.
I've done that, as well as put extra fans in the server case.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30464074</id>
	<title>ExacqVision</title>
	<author>WhosYourTiger</author>
	<datestamp>1259662740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Check out exacqVision.  They have standalone hardware and recording software solutions.  It supports analog and IP cameras, motion detection, and motion sensors.  I use the Windows version where I work, but they have a Linux version of the client and server software.  The software allows you to connect one IP device for free and you have to pay to license each IP device beyond that.  I think you have to contact them to get a demo login to download software from the site though.

<a href="http://www.exacq.com/" title="exacq.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.exacq.com/</a> [exacq.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out exacqVision .
They have standalone hardware and recording software solutions .
It supports analog and IP cameras , motion detection , and motion sensors .
I use the Windows version where I work , but they have a Linux version of the client and server software .
The software allows you to connect one IP device for free and you have to pay to license each IP device beyond that .
I think you have to contact them to get a demo login to download software from the site though .
http : //www.exacq.com/ [ exacq.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out exacqVision.
They have standalone hardware and recording software solutions.
It supports analog and IP cameras, motion detection, and motion sensors.
I use the Windows version where I work, but they have a Linux version of the client and server software.
The software allows you to connect one IP device for free and you have to pay to license each IP device beyond that.
I think you have to contact them to get a demo login to download software from the site though.
http://www.exacq.com/ [exacq.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446368</id>
	<title>WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>"I am wondering what slashdotters have to offer on the idea of Linux based security systems, especially DVR software....</i></p><p>This is a troll post.  The reason being, there is *something* out there to name that's GPL, but none of which would satisfy the author.  I believe the way the question is constructed gives the author's actual intentions right up front.  She/he wants to feel good about buying something off the shelf and reinforce his/her sense of 'getting a good deal.'</p><p>Just buy one better of the things all your friends have and then lie about the price paid.  That's the American way.</p><p>FYI, this is the common marketing problem with being 'the other' alternative.  In this case Linux actually drives more adoption of Mac/Win platforms.  There is also a more vexing social problem with choosing the third alternative.  It increases peer group insecurity.  Few consumers can tolerate so much peer group insecurity.  I would lump the author in that group.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>" I am wondering what slashdotters have to offer on the idea of Linux based security systems , especially DVR software....This is a troll post .
The reason being , there is * something * out there to name that 's GPL , but none of which would satisfy the author .
I believe the way the question is constructed gives the author 's actual intentions right up front .
She/he wants to feel good about buying something off the shelf and reinforce his/her sense of 'getting a good deal .
'Just buy one better of the things all your friends have and then lie about the price paid .
That 's the American way.FYI , this is the common marketing problem with being 'the other ' alternative .
In this case Linux actually drives more adoption of Mac/Win platforms .
There is also a more vexing social problem with choosing the third alternative .
It increases peer group insecurity .
Few consumers can tolerate so much peer group insecurity .
I would lump the author in that group .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"I am wondering what slashdotters have to offer on the idea of Linux based security systems, especially DVR software....This is a troll post.
The reason being, there is *something* out there to name that's GPL, but none of which would satisfy the author.
I believe the way the question is constructed gives the author's actual intentions right up front.
She/he wants to feel good about buying something off the shelf and reinforce his/her sense of 'getting a good deal.
'Just buy one better of the things all your friends have and then lie about the price paid.
That's the American way.FYI, this is the common marketing problem with being 'the other' alternative.
In this case Linux actually drives more adoption of Mac/Win platforms.
There is also a more vexing social problem with choosing the third alternative.
It increases peer group insecurity.
Few consumers can tolerate so much peer group insecurity.
I would lump the author in that group.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450718</id>
	<title>Re:Physical Security Systems</title>
	<author>vk-agency</author>
	<datestamp>1260875040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
We have a 16-channel security DVR, standalone, purchased from a large security camera vendor, with their OEM label (they didn't make it, but I don't know who did.) It has 16 video inputs, and 16 monitor outputs (for video.) It also has a VGA output. It can be monitored over the network using a Windows/ActiveX client called "J2K D1.31." We use all 16 camera channels.
</p><p>
The network client runs under Windows, and also under Parallels on the Mac. I've been searching for some time for a Mac native or xwindows-portable to Mac solution for some time without any luck at all. Not just to get rid of the Windows machine, though that'd be a blessing -- also to get a better performance client with more tools and options.
</p><p>
If anyone has any tips here, I'd really appreciate it.  The client is annoying enough that we do most monitoring using actual VGA monitors driven from splitters. Makes for a lot of extra hardware lying around!
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We have a 16-channel security DVR , standalone , purchased from a large security camera vendor , with their OEM label ( they did n't make it , but I do n't know who did .
) It has 16 video inputs , and 16 monitor outputs ( for video .
) It also has a VGA output .
It can be monitored over the network using a Windows/ActiveX client called " J2K D1.31 .
" We use all 16 camera channels .
The network client runs under Windows , and also under Parallels on the Mac .
I 've been searching for some time for a Mac native or xwindows-portable to Mac solution for some time without any luck at all .
Not just to get rid of the Windows machine , though that 'd be a blessing -- also to get a better performance client with more tools and options .
If anyone has any tips here , I 'd really appreciate it .
The client is annoying enough that we do most monitoring using actual VGA monitors driven from splitters .
Makes for a lot of extra hardware lying around !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
We have a 16-channel security DVR, standalone, purchased from a large security camera vendor, with their OEM label (they didn't make it, but I don't know who did.
) It has 16 video inputs, and 16 monitor outputs (for video.
) It also has a VGA output.
It can be monitored over the network using a Windows/ActiveX client called "J2K D1.31.
" We use all 16 camera channels.
The network client runs under Windows, and also under Parallels on the Mac.
I've been searching for some time for a Mac native or xwindows-portable to Mac solution for some time without any luck at all.
Not just to get rid of the Windows machine, though that'd be a blessing -- also to get a better performance client with more tools and options.
If anyone has any tips here, I'd really appreciate it.
The client is annoying enough that we do most monitoring using actual VGA monitors driven from splitters.
Makes for a lot of extra hardware lying around!
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447444</id>
	<title>Re:Ive tried them all</title>
	<author>Rennt</author>
	<datestamp>1260904380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you use IP cameras you don't need any capture cards at all. I set up a 9 camera Zoneminder system like this recently.</htmltext>
<tokenext>If you use IP cameras you do n't need any capture cards at all .
I set up a 9 camera Zoneminder system like this recently .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you use IP cameras you don't need any capture cards at all.
I set up a 9 camera Zoneminder system like this recently.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447954</id>
	<title>LinuxMCE</title>
	<author>localreader</author>
	<datestamp>1260906480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Take a look at LinuxMCE- has MythTV and Asterisk built in...   with a lot more that can be added with a little coding- e.g. Hulu support hopefully will be released in the next couple weeks.  The current build (in beta still) is based on Kubuntu 8.10 and the next release is scheduled shortly after 10.04 is released next spring.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Take a look at LinuxMCE- has MythTV and Asterisk built in... with a lot more that can be added with a little coding- e.g .
Hulu support hopefully will be released in the next couple weeks .
The current build ( in beta still ) is based on Kubuntu 8.10 and the next release is scheduled shortly after 10.04 is released next spring .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Take a look at LinuxMCE- has MythTV and Asterisk built in...   with a lot more that can be added with a little coding- e.g.
Hulu support hopefully will be released in the next couple weeks.
The current build (in beta still) is based on Kubuntu 8.10 and the next release is scheduled shortly after 10.04 is released next spring.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449806</id>
	<title>Re:Physical Security Systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260871680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My hero 3</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My hero 3</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My hero 3</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446616</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>MikeMacK</author>
	<datestamp>1260901620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Was the subject of your post ("WTF?") in reference to the original post or your own?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Was the subject of your post ( " WTF ?
" ) in reference to the original post or your own ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Was the subject of your post ("WTF?
") in reference to the original post or your own?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30460194</id>
	<title>Re:Ive tried them all</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259692500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZoneMinder is indeed the best when it comes to linux, hands down.<br>About DVR cards, You are also right, the one you are talking about is simply a pico2000 clone with pirated\fake software. The problem with the card is that it only has one 878A chip (BT878), and in windows, only the pico\supplied software knows how to get all the 4 channels properly.<br>In linux, zoneminder can also work with it.<br>I prefer this card, a Kodicom 8800R clone:<br>http://cgi.ebay.com/8-Channel-Real-time-CCTV-DVR-Security-Camera-PCI-Card\_W0QQitemZ370306243259QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH\_DefaultDomain\_0?hash=item5637f8dabb<br>It has 8 channels, 8 878A chips (BT878), one chip for each channel (/dev/video0 (0) to<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/dev/video7 (0)), works great with ZoneMinder.<br>BT878 chips are known to run hot, so its better to get some heatsinks on them if you want them to last long, I used these:<br>http://cgi.ebay.com/RAM-Heatsink-Cooler-VGA-Video-Card-4-NVIDIA-BGA-23-027\_W0QQitemZ120501007866QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH\_DefaultDomain\_0?hash=item1c0e6b75fa</p><p>my 2 cents.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZoneMinder is indeed the best when it comes to linux , hands down.About DVR cards , You are also right , the one you are talking about is simply a pico2000 clone with pirated \ fake software .
The problem with the card is that it only has one 878A chip ( BT878 ) , and in windows , only the pico \ supplied software knows how to get all the 4 channels properly.In linux , zoneminder can also work with it.I prefer this card , a Kodicom 8800R clone : http : //cgi.ebay.com/8-Channel-Real-time-CCTV-DVR-Security-Camera-PCI-Card \ _W0QQitemZ370306243259QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH \ _DefaultDomain \ _0 ? hash = item5637f8dabbIt has 8 channels , 8 878A chips ( BT878 ) , one chip for each channel ( /dev/video0 ( 0 ) to /dev/video7 ( 0 ) ) , works great with ZoneMinder.BT878 chips are known to run hot , so its better to get some heatsinks on them if you want them to last long , I used these : http : //cgi.ebay.com/RAM-Heatsink-Cooler-VGA-Video-Card-4-NVIDIA-BGA-23-027 \ _W0QQitemZ120501007866QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH \ _DefaultDomain \ _0 ? hash = item1c0e6b75famy 2 cents .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZoneMinder is indeed the best when it comes to linux, hands down.About DVR cards, You are also right, the one you are talking about is simply a pico2000 clone with pirated\fake software.
The problem with the card is that it only has one 878A chip (BT878), and in windows, only the pico\supplied software knows how to get all the 4 channels properly.In linux, zoneminder can also work with it.I prefer this card, a Kodicom 8800R clone:http://cgi.ebay.com/8-Channel-Real-time-CCTV-DVR-Security-Camera-PCI-Card\_W0QQitemZ370306243259QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH\_DefaultDomain\_0?hash=item5637f8dabbIt has 8 channels, 8 878A chips (BT878), one chip for each channel (/dev/video0 (0) to /dev/video7 (0)), works great with ZoneMinder.BT878 chips are known to run hot, so its better to get some heatsinks on them if you want them to last long, I used these:http://cgi.ebay.com/RAM-Heatsink-Cooler-VGA-Video-Card-4-NVIDIA-BGA-23-027\_W0QQitemZ120501007866QQcmdZViewItemQQptZLH\_DefaultDomain\_0?hash=item1c0e6b75famy 2 cents.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</id>
	<title>Zoneminder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sorry, but... Zoneminder *is* the state of the art in Linux DVR software.</p><p>And for reference, having recently compared many different versions on different operating systems for a project at my company, Zoneminder IS the state of the art in all platforms of DVR software. It's one of the only systems that will work with many varieties of end-point hardware cleanly. Most dedicated embedded systems will only work with their brand of camera, or a single video protocol.</p><p>There are systems that will link motion sensors and contact alarms (Zoneminder can do that, too, though it takes some finangling). Again, most of these only work with *their* hardware.</p><p>The biggest things to keep in mind are bandwidth, storage consumption, and retention. A camera input card may have a very large 'potential framerate', but when you spread that among the 16 inputs you have coming in, things start to add up *very* rapidly. There are physical limitations on the hardware that you will run into if your deployment is of any large size. Our deployment is one of the largest, having 80 cameras currently (planning on adding another 16 before too long), and we have to spread the load out among 5 high-powered servers with relatively large amounts of RAM. Even with that, we still need to upgrade our switch infrastructure to gigabit in order to be able to view all the cameras simultaneously! We've got fiber to our SANs, though, so storage and later retrieval of footage is no issue.</p><p>The only downside is the lack of professional support - Management doesn't have anyone externally that they can point at if something breaks.</p><p>If you're a power Linux user, I'd recommend Zoneminder. If you have a few cameras for a small business and are not technically skilled, I'd recommend a pre-packaged solution - but expect to spend more for a similar sized installation. If you have a LOT of cameras (more than about 16) but are not technically skilled... I'd recommend finding a consultant who can deploy Zoneminder and contract long-term support with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sorry , but... Zoneminder * is * the state of the art in Linux DVR software.And for reference , having recently compared many different versions on different operating systems for a project at my company , Zoneminder IS the state of the art in all platforms of DVR software .
It 's one of the only systems that will work with many varieties of end-point hardware cleanly .
Most dedicated embedded systems will only work with their brand of camera , or a single video protocol.There are systems that will link motion sensors and contact alarms ( Zoneminder can do that , too , though it takes some finangling ) .
Again , most of these only work with * their * hardware.The biggest things to keep in mind are bandwidth , storage consumption , and retention .
A camera input card may have a very large 'potential framerate ' , but when you spread that among the 16 inputs you have coming in , things start to add up * very * rapidly .
There are physical limitations on the hardware that you will run into if your deployment is of any large size .
Our deployment is one of the largest , having 80 cameras currently ( planning on adding another 16 before too long ) , and we have to spread the load out among 5 high-powered servers with relatively large amounts of RAM .
Even with that , we still need to upgrade our switch infrastructure to gigabit in order to be able to view all the cameras simultaneously !
We 've got fiber to our SANs , though , so storage and later retrieval of footage is no issue.The only downside is the lack of professional support - Management does n't have anyone externally that they can point at if something breaks.If you 're a power Linux user , I 'd recommend Zoneminder .
If you have a few cameras for a small business and are not technically skilled , I 'd recommend a pre-packaged solution - but expect to spend more for a similar sized installation .
If you have a LOT of cameras ( more than about 16 ) but are not technically skilled... I 'd recommend finding a consultant who can deploy Zoneminder and contract long-term support with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sorry, but... Zoneminder *is* the state of the art in Linux DVR software.And for reference, having recently compared many different versions on different operating systems for a project at my company, Zoneminder IS the state of the art in all platforms of DVR software.
It's one of the only systems that will work with many varieties of end-point hardware cleanly.
Most dedicated embedded systems will only work with their brand of camera, or a single video protocol.There are systems that will link motion sensors and contact alarms (Zoneminder can do that, too, though it takes some finangling).
Again, most of these only work with *their* hardware.The biggest things to keep in mind are bandwidth, storage consumption, and retention.
A camera input card may have a very large 'potential framerate', but when you spread that among the 16 inputs you have coming in, things start to add up *very* rapidly.
There are physical limitations on the hardware that you will run into if your deployment is of any large size.
Our deployment is one of the largest, having 80 cameras currently (planning on adding another 16 before too long), and we have to spread the load out among 5 high-powered servers with relatively large amounts of RAM.
Even with that, we still need to upgrade our switch infrastructure to gigabit in order to be able to view all the cameras simultaneously!
We've got fiber to our SANs, though, so storage and later retrieval of footage is no issue.The only downside is the lack of professional support - Management doesn't have anyone externally that they can point at if something breaks.If you're a power Linux user, I'd recommend Zoneminder.
If you have a few cameras for a small business and are not technically skilled, I'd recommend a pre-packaged solution - but expect to spend more for a similar sized installation.
If you have a LOT of cameras (more than about 16) but are not technically skilled... I'd recommend finding a consultant who can deploy Zoneminder and contract long-term support with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447200</id>
	<title>Re:Zoneminder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260903360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>BlueCherry offers a stand alone zoneminder live disk that works great.<br>http://sourceforge.net/projects/zoneminder-cd/</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>BlueCherry offers a stand alone zoneminder live disk that works great.http : //sourceforge.net/projects/zoneminder-cd/</tokentext>
<sentencetext>BlueCherry offers a stand alone zoneminder live disk that works great.http://sourceforge.net/projects/zoneminder-cd/</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447756</id>
	<title>LinuxMCE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>http://www.linuxmce.org/</p><p>Not sure what happened to my first post, but the current LinuxMCE (based on Kubuntu 8.10) is hopefully about to come out of beta with another release scheduled shortly after 10.04 is released.  LMCE has Asterisk and MythTV (or VDR) built in as standard- much more can be added with some code- e.g. Hulu support hopefully in the next couple weeks will be officially released.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //www.linuxmce.org/Not sure what happened to my first post , but the current LinuxMCE ( based on Kubuntu 8.10 ) is hopefully about to come out of beta with another release scheduled shortly after 10.04 is released .
LMCE has Asterisk and MythTV ( or VDR ) built in as standard- much more can be added with some code- e.g .
Hulu support hopefully in the next couple weeks will be officially released .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://www.linuxmce.org/Not sure what happened to my first post, but the current LinuxMCE (based on Kubuntu 8.10) is hopefully about to come out of beta with another release scheduled shortly after 10.04 is released.
LMCE has Asterisk and MythTV (or VDR) built in as standard- much more can be added with some code- e.g.
Hulu support hopefully in the next couple weeks will be officially released.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446650</id>
	<title>begging the question</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260901680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Can one server host three or four services applications of this nature, assuming CPU/memory/disk resources are sufficient?"</i></p><p>Uhm, by definition, yes.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Can one server host three or four services applications of this nature , assuming CPU/memory/disk resources are sufficient ?
" Uhm , by definition , yes .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Can one server host three or four services applications of this nature, assuming CPU/memory/disk resources are sufficient?
"Uhm, by definition, yes.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022</id>
	<title>Physical Security Systems</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260902760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>There are hundreds, no, thousands of security embedded linux based DVR systems on the market.  But the reference to ZoneMinder leans the question into the area of windowing linux based DVRs.  This is a shorter list, but still you find a few.  A few quick examples of servers which use a Linux OS you find: VideoEdge (Tyco), March Networks, SeeTec (Germany).  All of these offer a client which operates on a Window's workstation, but the recording is done on a Linux box.  The Tyco version actually uses the non-journaling EXT2 as the database, so as to take full advantage of the speed and maximum hard drive size.  Keep in mind that video systems record multiple TB of data in a normal 30 day record cycle.  That is to say, most end-users require between 2-4 weeks of video, and a small number require 6+ months to be saved.
<br> <br>
The fact is the most Linux systems are too complex for the majority of security applications.  A lack of skills in maintenance of the OS, networking, and configuration mean that the vendor needs to provide a fully pre-configured kernal+apps which is then loaded on a server, and this means that most professional vendors offer Windows systems as the rule.  SeeTec does allow for normal SuSe as the OS and then their application loads on top, but the reality is that 95\% of end-users don't choose this because they are window's houses.  This means SeeTec develop the Windows version as the priority.  <br> <br>

There is also the politics to consider. The IT department and the Security dept. couldn't come from more disperate worlds.  Generally speaking they don't like each other, and don't want to talk to each other, and no matter what the<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. readers will flame at me, the IT dept doesn't have the first idea of what to purchase in a physical security system.  I've seen this hundreds of times.  The IT guy says "IP please", but this translates into a horrible final system purchase.
<br> <br>
The take-away is that as an IP guy, don't look for a pure Linux system if you are serious about security.  Integration into Intruder, Access Control, Fire and Building Management (almost all of which are also Windows based systems) will require you to most likely stay on a Windows platform.  If you're from the IT department you'll need A) a professional Integrator/Installer to recommend the right system and B) you'll need to remember you're no longer an expert.  Security is not IT even though it might be loaded onto a Windows or Linux box.  So please don't tell the Integrator what you "need".  First get at least 2 opinions and then start to shape your requirements.</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are hundreds , no , thousands of security embedded linux based DVR systems on the market .
But the reference to ZoneMinder leans the question into the area of windowing linux based DVRs .
This is a shorter list , but still you find a few .
A few quick examples of servers which use a Linux OS you find : VideoEdge ( Tyco ) , March Networks , SeeTec ( Germany ) .
All of these offer a client which operates on a Window 's workstation , but the recording is done on a Linux box .
The Tyco version actually uses the non-journaling EXT2 as the database , so as to take full advantage of the speed and maximum hard drive size .
Keep in mind that video systems record multiple TB of data in a normal 30 day record cycle .
That is to say , most end-users require between 2-4 weeks of video , and a small number require 6 + months to be saved .
The fact is the most Linux systems are too complex for the majority of security applications .
A lack of skills in maintenance of the OS , networking , and configuration mean that the vendor needs to provide a fully pre-configured kernal + apps which is then loaded on a server , and this means that most professional vendors offer Windows systems as the rule .
SeeTec does allow for normal SuSe as the OS and then their application loads on top , but the reality is that 95 \ % of end-users do n't choose this because they are window 's houses .
This means SeeTec develop the Windows version as the priority .
There is also the politics to consider .
The IT department and the Security dept .
could n't come from more disperate worlds .
Generally speaking they do n't like each other , and do n't want to talk to each other , and no matter what the / .
readers will flame at me , the IT dept does n't have the first idea of what to purchase in a physical security system .
I 've seen this hundreds of times .
The IT guy says " IP please " , but this translates into a horrible final system purchase .
The take-away is that as an IP guy , do n't look for a pure Linux system if you are serious about security .
Integration into Intruder , Access Control , Fire and Building Management ( almost all of which are also Windows based systems ) will require you to most likely stay on a Windows platform .
If you 're from the IT department you 'll need A ) a professional Integrator/Installer to recommend the right system and B ) you 'll need to remember you 're no longer an expert .
Security is not IT even though it might be loaded onto a Windows or Linux box .
So please do n't tell the Integrator what you " need " .
First get at least 2 opinions and then start to shape your requirements .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are hundreds, no, thousands of security embedded linux based DVR systems on the market.
But the reference to ZoneMinder leans the question into the area of windowing linux based DVRs.
This is a shorter list, but still you find a few.
A few quick examples of servers which use a Linux OS you find: VideoEdge (Tyco), March Networks, SeeTec (Germany).
All of these offer a client which operates on a Window's workstation, but the recording is done on a Linux box.
The Tyco version actually uses the non-journaling EXT2 as the database, so as to take full advantage of the speed and maximum hard drive size.
Keep in mind that video systems record multiple TB of data in a normal 30 day record cycle.
That is to say, most end-users require between 2-4 weeks of video, and a small number require 6+ months to be saved.
The fact is the most Linux systems are too complex for the majority of security applications.
A lack of skills in maintenance of the OS, networking, and configuration mean that the vendor needs to provide a fully pre-configured kernal+apps which is then loaded on a server, and this means that most professional vendors offer Windows systems as the rule.
SeeTec does allow for normal SuSe as the OS and then their application loads on top, but the reality is that 95\% of end-users don't choose this because they are window's houses.
This means SeeTec develop the Windows version as the priority.
There is also the politics to consider.
The IT department and the Security dept.
couldn't come from more disperate worlds.
Generally speaking they don't like each other, and don't want to talk to each other, and no matter what the /.
readers will flame at me, the IT dept doesn't have the first idea of what to purchase in a physical security system.
I've seen this hundreds of times.
The IT guy says "IP please", but this translates into a horrible final system purchase.
The take-away is that as an IP guy, don't look for a pure Linux system if you are serious about security.
Integration into Intruder, Access Control, Fire and Building Management (almost all of which are also Windows based systems) will require you to most likely stay on a Windows platform.
If you're from the IT department you'll need A) a professional Integrator/Installer to recommend the right system and B) you'll need to remember you're no longer an expert.
Security is not IT even though it might be loaded onto a Windows or Linux box.
So please don't tell the Integrator what you "need".
First get at least 2 opinions and then start to shape your requirements.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447592</id>
	<title>Hawkeye</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260904920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Have a look at the Hawkeye systems by Neugent which runs of Centos or Fedora</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Have a look at the Hawkeye systems by Neugent which runs of Centos or Fedora</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Have a look at the Hawkeye systems by Neugent which runs of Centos or Fedora</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446092</id>
	<title>State: a gaping hole</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260899940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>A gaping hole, much like <a href="http://goatse.fr/" title="goatse.fr" rel="nofollow">goatse</a> [goatse.fr].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>A gaping hole , much like goatse [ goatse.fr ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A gaping hole, much like goatse [goatse.fr].</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447652</id>
	<title>LinuxMCE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You should take a look at LinuxMCE- http://www.linuxmce.org/</p><p>It's hopefully about to get out of the latest beta (built on Kubuntu 8.10) with another release scheduled shortly after 10.04 is release.  Asterisk and MythTV (or VDR) are part of the standard package... much more can be added with a little coding.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You should take a look at LinuxMCE- http : //www.linuxmce.org/It 's hopefully about to get out of the latest beta ( built on Kubuntu 8.10 ) with another release scheduled shortly after 10.04 is release .
Asterisk and MythTV ( or VDR ) are part of the standard package... much more can be added with a little coding .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You should take a look at LinuxMCE- http://www.linuxmce.org/It's hopefully about to get out of the latest beta (built on Kubuntu 8.10) with another release scheduled shortly after 10.04 is release.
Asterisk and MythTV (or VDR) are part of the standard package... much more can be added with a little coding.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30454536</id>
	<title>Used ONSSI and trying to get Zoneminder to work</title>
	<author>Mr.Ziggy</author>
	<datestamp>1260904800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've used ONSSI's surveillance software for windows.  About 40 cameras, all megapixel or above Axis cameras, recording on MPEG.  One server on a $175 AMD cpu with a 16 channel Adaptec RAID card. (16-1TB 7200rpm SATA drives).  Doing record on motion, the CPU is pegged at about 60\% all the time.</p><p>I got ONSSI up and running quicker than I am using Zoneminder, although I have more windows IT experience than Linux.</p><p>Currently having some issues playing with Zoneminder/Ubuntu memory management, and I don't think the viewer interface is anywhere near as good as the ONSSI solution.  ONSSI support is poor to average, and is really a windows only product that seems to break easily when malware screws with Explorer.  (that's why I'm trying to move to Linux solution)\</p><p>Zoneminder is a LOT better than when I evaluated it 19 months ago.  It wasn't a viable alternative then for us, but is now.</p><p>Never done more but contribute a little financially to open source, but looking for ways to help the project.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've used ONSSI 's surveillance software for windows .
About 40 cameras , all megapixel or above Axis cameras , recording on MPEG .
One server on a $ 175 AMD cpu with a 16 channel Adaptec RAID card .
( 16-1TB 7200rpm SATA drives ) .
Doing record on motion , the CPU is pegged at about 60 \ % all the time.I got ONSSI up and running quicker than I am using Zoneminder , although I have more windows IT experience than Linux.Currently having some issues playing with Zoneminder/Ubuntu memory management , and I do n't think the viewer interface is anywhere near as good as the ONSSI solution .
ONSSI support is poor to average , and is really a windows only product that seems to break easily when malware screws with Explorer .
( that 's why I 'm trying to move to Linux solution ) \ Zoneminder is a LOT better than when I evaluated it 19 months ago .
It was n't a viable alternative then for us , but is now.Never done more but contribute a little financially to open source , but looking for ways to help the project .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've used ONSSI's surveillance software for windows.
About 40 cameras, all megapixel or above Axis cameras, recording on MPEG.
One server on a $175 AMD cpu with a 16 channel Adaptec RAID card.
(16-1TB 7200rpm SATA drives).
Doing record on motion, the CPU is pegged at about 60\% all the time.I got ONSSI up and running quicker than I am using Zoneminder, although I have more windows IT experience than Linux.Currently having some issues playing with Zoneminder/Ubuntu memory management, and I don't think the viewer interface is anywhere near as good as the ONSSI solution.
ONSSI support is poor to average, and is really a windows only product that seems to break easily when malware screws with Explorer.
(that's why I'm trying to move to Linux solution)\Zoneminder is a LOT better than when I evaluated it 19 months ago.
It wasn't a viable alternative then for us, but is now.Never done more but contribute a little financially to open source, but looking for ways to help the project.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447792</id>
	<title>kmotion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260905820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>From http://www.kmotion.eu</p><p>We've been testing it for a few months alongside Zoneminder, and it's definitely progressing.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>From http : //www.kmotion.euWe 've been testing it for a few months alongside Zoneminder , and it 's definitely progressing .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>From http://www.kmotion.euWe've been testing it for a few months alongside Zoneminder, and it's definitely progressing.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448034</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>StonyCreekBare</author>
	<datestamp>1260906780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, you're quite wrong.  I want to avoid closed "off-the-shelf" products if at all possible.  But I want a really good system, and am trying to learn what is available in the Linux world that will meet my needs.  I am leaning heavily toward Zoneminder, but want to know about alternatives I may have missed.

I am planning a large server infrastructure that will include applications such as Asterisk, MythTV and even Misterhouse.  I am very much wondering as well about sharing server platforms, thus looking for caveats about combining, say, Asterisk and a few security cameras on the same server.

Frankly, your post is offensive and does not contribute to the discussion.

Stony</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you 're quite wrong .
I want to avoid closed " off-the-shelf " products if at all possible .
But I want a really good system , and am trying to learn what is available in the Linux world that will meet my needs .
I am leaning heavily toward Zoneminder , but want to know about alternatives I may have missed .
I am planning a large server infrastructure that will include applications such as Asterisk , MythTV and even Misterhouse .
I am very much wondering as well about sharing server platforms , thus looking for caveats about combining , say , Asterisk and a few security cameras on the same server .
Frankly , your post is offensive and does not contribute to the discussion .
Stony</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you're quite wrong.
I want to avoid closed "off-the-shelf" products if at all possible.
But I want a really good system, and am trying to learn what is available in the Linux world that will meet my needs.
I am leaning heavily toward Zoneminder, but want to know about alternatives I may have missed.
I am planning a large server infrastructure that will include applications such as Asterisk, MythTV and even Misterhouse.
I am very much wondering as well about sharing server platforms, thus looking for caveats about combining, say, Asterisk and a few security cameras on the same server.
Frankly, your post is offensive and does not contribute to the discussion.
Stony</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446368</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446374</id>
	<title>Linux surveillance software</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Generalized software running on generalized hardware such as Linux on standard computer components will never have the same capabilities as an embedded solution that has been specifically engineered for said purpose.  It would be unfair to compare them directly.  The real question is how sophistcated do you want the system to be?  If you just want quality information for law enforcement should something happen, just get a dedicated system and be done with it.</p><p>Typically when people want to explore solutions that are "outside the box" its because they want to showcase it to their buddies... "look how cool it is, I can zoom in on someones booger 300 yards down the road".</p><p>Zoneminder is one of the better ones.  Have a look at iDVR.</p><p>An older<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/. post with similar interests: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/27/220254</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Generalized software running on generalized hardware such as Linux on standard computer components will never have the same capabilities as an embedded solution that has been specifically engineered for said purpose .
It would be unfair to compare them directly .
The real question is how sophistcated do you want the system to be ?
If you just want quality information for law enforcement should something happen , just get a dedicated system and be done with it.Typically when people want to explore solutions that are " outside the box " its because they want to showcase it to their buddies... " look how cool it is , I can zoom in on someones booger 300 yards down the road " .Zoneminder is one of the better ones .
Have a look at iDVR.An older / .
post with similar interests : http : //it.slashdot.org/article.pl ? sid = 08/04/27/220254</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Generalized software running on generalized hardware such as Linux on standard computer components will never have the same capabilities as an embedded solution that has been specifically engineered for said purpose.
It would be unfair to compare them directly.
The real question is how sophistcated do you want the system to be?
If you just want quality information for law enforcement should something happen, just get a dedicated system and be done with it.Typically when people want to explore solutions that are "outside the box" its because they want to showcase it to their buddies... "look how cool it is, I can zoom in on someones booger 300 yards down the road".Zoneminder is one of the better ones.
Have a look at iDVR.An older /.
post with similar interests: http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/04/27/220254</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450396</id>
	<title>My experience</title>
	<author>b0bby</author>
	<datestamp>1260873960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I tried a few things in our small business before settling on Zoneminder with a PV-149 8-port analog card &amp; analog cameras. I have it running on a cheap Dell server (Pentium Dual Core, I think), and several weeks of events can be kept on the 80GB drive. It has been an extremely reliable setup for the last couple of years. If you use the Axis IP cameras with their own event triggering you can get away with a very low-powered machine, but the image processing otherwise means you want something at least halfway decent. If your box is powerful enough I can't see why Asterisk wouldn't run ok as well, but I haven't tried that yet. For a while I had it running with some cheap USB webcams, but they weren't as stable as the analog cams, and it's easy to get analog cams that switch over to IR in the dark.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I tried a few things in our small business before settling on Zoneminder with a PV-149 8-port analog card &amp; analog cameras .
I have it running on a cheap Dell server ( Pentium Dual Core , I think ) , and several weeks of events can be kept on the 80GB drive .
It has been an extremely reliable setup for the last couple of years .
If you use the Axis IP cameras with their own event triggering you can get away with a very low-powered machine , but the image processing otherwise means you want something at least halfway decent .
If your box is powerful enough I ca n't see why Asterisk would n't run ok as well , but I have n't tried that yet .
For a while I had it running with some cheap USB webcams , but they were n't as stable as the analog cams , and it 's easy to get analog cams that switch over to IR in the dark .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I tried a few things in our small business before settling on Zoneminder with a PV-149 8-port analog card &amp; analog cameras.
I have it running on a cheap Dell server (Pentium Dual Core, I think), and several weeks of events can be kept on the 80GB drive.
It has been an extremely reliable setup for the last couple of years.
If you use the Axis IP cameras with their own event triggering you can get away with a very low-powered machine, but the image processing otherwise means you want something at least halfway decent.
If your box is powerful enough I can't see why Asterisk wouldn't run ok as well, but I haven't tried that yet.
For a while I had it running with some cheap USB webcams, but they weren't as stable as the analog cams, and it's easy to get analog cams that switch over to IR in the dark.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450896</id>
	<title>What's the difference...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260875820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>...between a mathematician and a pizza? A pizza can feed a family of four.</htmltext>
<tokenext>...between a mathematician and a pizza ?
A pizza can feed a family of four .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...between a mathematician and a pizza?
A pizza can feed a family of four.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446252</id>
	<title>Motion</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>motion</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>motion</tokentext>
<sentencetext>motion</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447404</id>
	<title>Re:Zoneminder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260904200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have been using zoneminder for a few years and it works very well. One of the limit you will find with it is that the built in alarms that use image comparison use a lot of cpu power. If you plan on having many cameras and using the image zone alarms you will need to have a sufficiently powerful computer. I know you can use external triggers from x10 devices or insteon to trigger your recording. The documentation on x10 seems to be pretty good, but the insteon documentation was lacking last time I looked. The image comparison alarms have worked great for me, but they do have limitations. They don't work so well in environments where the light is changing constantly.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have been using zoneminder for a few years and it works very well .
One of the limit you will find with it is that the built in alarms that use image comparison use a lot of cpu power .
If you plan on having many cameras and using the image zone alarms you will need to have a sufficiently powerful computer .
I know you can use external triggers from x10 devices or insteon to trigger your recording .
The documentation on x10 seems to be pretty good , but the insteon documentation was lacking last time I looked .
The image comparison alarms have worked great for me , but they do have limitations .
They do n't work so well in environments where the light is changing constantly .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have been using zoneminder for a few years and it works very well.
One of the limit you will find with it is that the built in alarms that use image comparison use a lot of cpu power.
If you plan on having many cameras and using the image zone alarms you will need to have a sufficiently powerful computer.
I know you can use external triggers from x10 devices or insteon to trigger your recording.
The documentation on x10 seems to be pretty good, but the insteon documentation was lacking last time I looked.
The image comparison alarms have worked great for me, but they do have limitations.
They don't work so well in environments where the light is changing constantly.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446030</id>
	<title>Direct tv uses Linux on there HD DVR's</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260899700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Direct tv uses Linux on there HD DVR's</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Direct tv uses Linux on there HD DVR 's</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Direct tv uses Linux on there HD DVR's</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30465686</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1259667720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Check out Linuxmce.org. It's constantly getting better and has all of that already cobbled together for you. it's a bit complicated but it works once setup.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Check out Linuxmce.org .
It 's constantly getting better and has all of that already cobbled together for you .
it 's a bit complicated but it works once setup .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Check out Linuxmce.org.
It's constantly getting better and has all of that already cobbled together for you.
it's a bit complicated but it works once setup.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448034</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448162</id>
	<title>Open Hardware Camera</title>
	<author>nuonguy</author>
	<datestamp>1260907200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>This thread is not complete with mentioning the <a href="http://www.elphel.com/index\_en.html" title="elphel.com" rel="nofollow">Elphel</a> [elphel.com].  Some <a href="http://wiki.elphel.com/index.php?title=Elphel\_cameras\_and\_Zoneminder" title="elphel.com" rel="nofollow">instructions</a> [elphel.com].  If <a href="http://wiki.elphel.com/index.php?title=Roadmap#Elphel\_cameras\_and\_Zoneminder" title="elphel.com" rel="nofollow">this roadmap entry</a> [elphel.com] is up to date, you'll have to choose a specific elphel model.

I have no experience with either.</htmltext>
<tokenext>This thread is not complete with mentioning the Elphel [ elphel.com ] .
Some instructions [ elphel.com ] .
If this roadmap entry [ elphel.com ] is up to date , you 'll have to choose a specific elphel model .
I have no experience with either .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This thread is not complete with mentioning the Elphel [elphel.com].
Some instructions [elphel.com].
If this roadmap entry [elphel.com] is up to date, you'll have to choose a specific elphel model.
I have no experience with either.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447696</id>
	<title>surveillance software</title>
	<author>james\_shoemaker</author>
	<datestamp>1260905340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>  I use a package called "motion" and a collection of shell scripts to handle my cameras and viewing them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I use a package called " motion " and a collection of shell scripts to handle my cameras and viewing them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>  I use a package called "motion" and a collection of shell scripts to handle my cameras and viewing them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446300</id>
	<title>T-Rex Syndrome</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Short arms and deep pockets...</p><p>What Stony means to ask is if there are any free DVR products out there, not the least interested in "Linux based", much less OSS.  There is nothing wrong with that, however there are a few niche categories that you won't find "Linux based" software for that is either well developed or even free for that matter. You've just hit on one of them.</p><p>Now grow some arms.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Short arms and deep pockets...What Stony means to ask is if there are any free DVR products out there , not the least interested in " Linux based " , much less OSS .
There is nothing wrong with that , however there are a few niche categories that you wo n't find " Linux based " software for that is either well developed or even free for that matter .
You 've just hit on one of them.Now grow some arms .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Short arms and deep pockets...What Stony means to ask is if there are any free DVR products out there, not the least interested in "Linux based", much less OSS.
There is nothing wrong with that, however there are a few niche categories that you won't find "Linux based" software for that is either well developed or even free for that matter.
You've just hit on one of them.Now grow some arms.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449446</id>
	<title>Re:Zoneminder</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260870120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Zoneminder is terrible for any kind of large installation.  I tried to run 24 ip based cameras on quad-core with a nice fast raid array.  The system load was crazy high all the time, and would lock up and crash the server every 60 days.  For a small setup its fine, but anything larger that about 10 cameras gets overloaded with image processing.  I really like Linux and linux based solutions, and looked everywhere to find something at a decent price that could handle 30 cameras, and didn't find anything.  I ended up with software from Milestone that runs on windows (shudder), but it has been way more stable than Zoneminder, far less processor intensive, and has much better features and search.  Search on Zoneminder seems okay, but becomes dreadful in real world situations i.e. find an event that happened some time in the last 24 hours, and give us all 3 camera angles for it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Zoneminder is terrible for any kind of large installation .
I tried to run 24 ip based cameras on quad-core with a nice fast raid array .
The system load was crazy high all the time , and would lock up and crash the server every 60 days .
For a small setup its fine , but anything larger that about 10 cameras gets overloaded with image processing .
I really like Linux and linux based solutions , and looked everywhere to find something at a decent price that could handle 30 cameras , and did n't find anything .
I ended up with software from Milestone that runs on windows ( shudder ) , but it has been way more stable than Zoneminder , far less processor intensive , and has much better features and search .
Search on Zoneminder seems okay , but becomes dreadful in real world situations i.e .
find an event that happened some time in the last 24 hours , and give us all 3 camera angles for it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zoneminder is terrible for any kind of large installation.
I tried to run 24 ip based cameras on quad-core with a nice fast raid array.
The system load was crazy high all the time, and would lock up and crash the server every 60 days.
For a small setup its fine, but anything larger that about 10 cameras gets overloaded with image processing.
I really like Linux and linux based solutions, and looked everywhere to find something at a decent price that could handle 30 cameras, and didn't find anything.
I ended up with software from Milestone that runs on windows (shudder), but it has been way more stable than Zoneminder, far less processor intensive, and has much better features and search.
Search on Zoneminder seems okay, but becomes dreadful in real world situations i.e.
find an event that happened some time in the last 24 hours, and give us all 3 camera angles for it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446984</id>
	<title>Re:WTF?</title>
	<author>mounthood</author>
	<datestamp>1260902700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I don't understand the TLA you used..!?</htmltext>
<tokenext>I do n't understand the TLA you used.. !
?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I don't understand the TLA you used..!
?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446616</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446692</id>
	<title>DVRUSA.COM</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260901800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>My company has switched from Geovision DVR's to Linux based DVR's from DVRUSA. They run Fedora, postgreSQL, and you're actually given the root password to the machine when you buy it. They do motion tracking with PTZ, etc.</htmltext>
<tokenext>My company has switched from Geovision DVR 's to Linux based DVR 's from DVRUSA .
They run Fedora , postgreSQL , and you 're actually given the root password to the machine when you buy it .
They do motion tracking with PTZ , etc .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My company has switched from Geovision DVR's to Linux based DVR's from DVRUSA.
They run Fedora, postgreSQL, and you're actually given the root password to the machine when you buy it.
They do motion tracking with PTZ, etc.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450844</id>
	<title>Re:Physical Security Systems</title>
	<author>plover</author>
	<datestamp>1260875580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There are two common ways to bring a Linux based system into a Windows shop:  the first is that the vendor could be providing just an application to be installed, and expecting you to provide the server and maintain the operating system.  The other is that they could be delivering a turn-key <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LAMP\_(software\_bundle)" title="wikipedia.org">LAMP</a> [wikipedia.org] image, and offering to remotely support it for you.  That way your shop can look at is as a black-box appliance, and not have to worry about it.</p><p>If you don't have your own people and tools and infrastructure to administer it, the "app-only" route is likely to meet with more resistance than the LAMP route.  The operations team isn't going to want a Linux box if they can't stick their corporate standard SMS agent on it, for example.  But don't expect the LAMP solution to mean "woo-hoo, we brought Linux into our shop!"  Far from it:  your terms of service will likely mean that you can't even log on to the box other than to use it.  All maintenance will be done by the vendor.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There are two common ways to bring a Linux based system into a Windows shop : the first is that the vendor could be providing just an application to be installed , and expecting you to provide the server and maintain the operating system .
The other is that they could be delivering a turn-key LAMP [ wikipedia.org ] image , and offering to remotely support it for you .
That way your shop can look at is as a black-box appliance , and not have to worry about it.If you do n't have your own people and tools and infrastructure to administer it , the " app-only " route is likely to meet with more resistance than the LAMP route .
The operations team is n't going to want a Linux box if they ca n't stick their corporate standard SMS agent on it , for example .
But do n't expect the LAMP solution to mean " woo-hoo , we brought Linux into our shop !
" Far from it : your terms of service will likely mean that you ca n't even log on to the box other than to use it .
All maintenance will be done by the vendor .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are two common ways to bring a Linux based system into a Windows shop:  the first is that the vendor could be providing just an application to be installed, and expecting you to provide the server and maintain the operating system.
The other is that they could be delivering a turn-key LAMP [wikipedia.org] image, and offering to remotely support it for you.
That way your shop can look at is as a black-box appliance, and not have to worry about it.If you don't have your own people and tools and infrastructure to administer it, the "app-only" route is likely to meet with more resistance than the LAMP route.
The operations team isn't going to want a Linux box if they can't stick their corporate standard SMS agent on it, for example.
But don't expect the LAMP solution to mean "woo-hoo, we brought Linux into our shop!
"  Far from it:  your terms of service will likely mean that you can't even log on to the box other than to use it.
All maintenance will be done by the vendor.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448030</id>
	<title>I rolled my own</title>
	<author>Yossarian45793</author>
	<datestamp>1260906720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I have a 5 camera system (slowly growing) and I evaluated ZoneMinder and decided that it didn't meet my requirements, so I rolled my own. If you are good at C programming Linux has everything you need to write a simple capture/streaming application. I use USB video capture devices (Pinnacle Dazzle DVD Recorder) because they are cheap (no tuner), have excellent quality, and I have no shortage of USB ports.
<p>
Linux natively supports these devices, and the V4L2 APIs make it trivial to reads frames. Using libavcodec from the ffmpeg project you can encode the frames to practically any format imaginable. I encode all 5 cameras to MPEG-4 at 30 fps using minimal CPU power. All of this is possible with only about 500 lines of C code. Of course in my own version I've added a lot of fancy features over time and the project has gotten quite large with support for low-bandwidth streaming, crude motion detection, time-lapse video, etc.
</p><p>
I won't lie to you and tell you that the documentation for ffmpeg is any good. But there are tutorials out there that explain how to use libavcodec and everything else is a piece of cake. Don't overestimate how simple is it to get something basic working.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have a 5 camera system ( slowly growing ) and I evaluated ZoneMinder and decided that it did n't meet my requirements , so I rolled my own .
If you are good at C programming Linux has everything you need to write a simple capture/streaming application .
I use USB video capture devices ( Pinnacle Dazzle DVD Recorder ) because they are cheap ( no tuner ) , have excellent quality , and I have no shortage of USB ports .
Linux natively supports these devices , and the V4L2 APIs make it trivial to reads frames .
Using libavcodec from the ffmpeg project you can encode the frames to practically any format imaginable .
I encode all 5 cameras to MPEG-4 at 30 fps using minimal CPU power .
All of this is possible with only about 500 lines of C code .
Of course in my own version I 've added a lot of fancy features over time and the project has gotten quite large with support for low-bandwidth streaming , crude motion detection , time-lapse video , etc .
I wo n't lie to you and tell you that the documentation for ffmpeg is any good .
But there are tutorials out there that explain how to use libavcodec and everything else is a piece of cake .
Do n't overestimate how simple is it to get something basic working .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have a 5 camera system (slowly growing) and I evaluated ZoneMinder and decided that it didn't meet my requirements, so I rolled my own.
If you are good at C programming Linux has everything you need to write a simple capture/streaming application.
I use USB video capture devices (Pinnacle Dazzle DVD Recorder) because they are cheap (no tuner), have excellent quality, and I have no shortage of USB ports.
Linux natively supports these devices, and the V4L2 APIs make it trivial to reads frames.
Using libavcodec from the ffmpeg project you can encode the frames to practically any format imaginable.
I encode all 5 cameras to MPEG-4 at 30 fps using minimal CPU power.
All of this is possible with only about 500 lines of C code.
Of course in my own version I've added a lot of fancy features over time and the project has gotten quite large with support for low-bandwidth streaming, crude motion detection, time-lapse video, etc.
I won't lie to you and tell you that the documentation for ffmpeg is any good.
But there are tutorials out there that explain how to use libavcodec and everything else is a piece of cake.
Don't overestimate how simple is it to get something basic working.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446370</id>
	<title>that doesn't sound very "state of the art"</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1260900840000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On the other hand, I've done deployments numbering <i>several hundred</i> cameras using the Linux security-DVR software offered by Cisco: <a href="http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9152/index.html" title="cisco.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9152/index.html</a> [cisco.com].</p><p>It can handle a darn sight more than the 16 cameras per-server you needed. It does not support linking motion sensors or contact alarms to the cameras, but the record-on-motion capability gives similar functionality for most uses.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On the other hand , I 've done deployments numbering several hundred cameras using the Linux security-DVR software offered by Cisco : http : //www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9152/index.html [ cisco.com ] .It can handle a darn sight more than the 16 cameras per-server you needed .
It does not support linking motion sensors or contact alarms to the cameras , but the record-on-motion capability gives similar functionality for most uses .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On the other hand, I've done deployments numbering several hundred cameras using the Linux security-DVR software offered by Cisco: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/ps9152/index.html [cisco.com].It can handle a darn sight more than the 16 cameras per-server you needed.
It does not support linking motion sensors or contact alarms to the cameras, but the record-on-motion capability gives similar functionality for most uses.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30465686
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448034
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447404
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449274
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30460194
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450526
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447818
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450718
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448734
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449806
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447336
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446370
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449446
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30469720
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446692
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449754
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449914
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447444
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446984
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446616
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446368
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450844
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447200
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30453642
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_12_15_166244_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30582972
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448030
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447022
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450844
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449806
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450718
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446188
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447404
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449754
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447200
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447336
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446370
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449446
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448734
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446368
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446616
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446984
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448034
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30465686
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450896
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446692
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30469720
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447696
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447818
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30450526
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447652
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446030
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446252
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447592
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30448030
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30582972
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446182
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30460194
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30453642
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30447444
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449914
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30449274
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_12_15_166244.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_12_15_166244.30446374
</commentlist>
</conversation>
