Gene Heskett wrote:
If you want to run an OS without a stable driver interface, you can
always pay extra for a network camera like these:
http://www.axis.com/products/video/camera/
You are missing the point Les.
I don't really have a point - its just an observation.
> Whyintuncket should we have to spend what,
$500 to $1500 a copy for something like that just because we're running
linux?
Because they don't rely on anything OS-specific. Or anything that your
OS license prohibits anyone from supplying along with the OS.
Granted, it would give a many times better result than the $30
webcam clipped to the top of your lappies screen, no argument there. But
if that $30 USD camera gives an acceptable picture to a winderz box, then
whyintuncket can't it do the same on a linux box? The data coming up the
ever present usb cable doesn't magically smear itself in mustard just
because the receiver in running linux. Michael, I think does the best he
can with the info he can get, but its not good enough. And no one else
seems to have $0.50 to call someone who cares, so we're stuck.
I don't know enough about USB video to know if there is a working
standard like there is for storage. If there is, and this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USB_video_device_class
seems to imply that there should be, then there is some chance for a
Linux driver unless it needs patented/licensed technology. The
'No' on MEPEG-2 TS on the project here:
http://linux-uvc.berlios.de/ makes it seem kind of unlikely.
If every device needs its own driver for extra features, then it's even
worse. The best you could hope for is the shaky collusion you see with
nvidia and ati where the vendors try but the distributors don't distribute.
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikesell@xxxxxxxxx
