Is there anything you'd recommend which isn't Chinese state owned?
*** Official Ubiquiti Discussion Thread ***
- Thread starter RoyMi6
- Start date
Dahua isn’t Chinese state controlled. In a communist country EVERYTHING is collectively owned. So even Apple and Intel manufacture items in Chinese state collectively owned factories. Hikvision is Chinese state controlled, and there is a massive difference between controlled and collective ownership.
If you want something that isn’t manufactured in China, then you’ll struggle. Axis Q1798-LE is probably the best camera on sale of this type, but the Dahua is £150, the Hikvision is £120 and the Axis is £3000.
Also bear in mind that most other brands (with the exception of Avigilon, Axis, Hanwha and a couple of very small specialists) source either their whole cameras and recorders or parts like sensors from Hikvision or Dahua. There are other Chinese manufacturers like Uniview (Reolink’s OEM) and TVT (QVIS’s OEM) but they are in the minority.
From Wikipedia:
I realise that most parts end up coming from China but I'm not willing to have an entire device manufactured either fully or partially state controlled in and out of my home recording video.
If I do stick with Unifi for my gateway, is there any likelihood of the Gateway pro being EOL soon? Should I go for a Dream Machine pro?
Right now I'm thinking of replacing my USG with the Dream Machine Pro, and then getting a Qnap NAS with surveillance station licences.
Stick with the unifi kit for networking which they do well (in my experience) and move to Qnap for video, which ubiquiti do badly (ime).
Right now I'm thinking of replacing my USG with the Dream Machine Pro, and then getting a Qnap NAS with surveillance station licences.
Stick with the unifi kit for networking which they do well (in my experience) and move to Qnap for video, which ubiquiti do badly (ime).
EVERYTHING in China is partially state owned. And the UniFi hack should have told you that anyone that doesn’t want someone looking at the inside of your home shouldn’t have any cameras in your home. Ubiquiti have a formal deal with the US Dept. of Homeland Security and will hand over whatever is requested of them. So only go UniFi if you want cameras controlled by the US Government then knock yourself out. At least with Dahua and Hikvision recorders you don’t have to use their automatic VPN solution with its Chinese servers and you can use your own. Or you can use your own hardware and software eg. Synology Surveillance Station or Blue Iris. You can’t do that with UniFi cameras. You have to use UBNTs software and hardware.
Disclaimer: I don’t have any special knowledge about the inside working of Ubiquiti.
The USGs are already frozen in terms of features and they receive no updates in firmware other than security fixes. They are effectively EoL already from a development point of view.
The UDM Pro has been a complete Custer-**** for UBNT. It’s never really worked quite the way it should and my STRONG feeling is that it will be ditched when the UXG-Pro and UXG-Lite (or whatever the cut-down version is eventually called) are launched. If you don’t think they’ll ditch a newish product then definitely think again - they ditched the US-XG-8 and they ditched the XG Server which was an early version of the UDM Pro as it was a controller and video recorder. They also ditched UniFi Video which had a MASSIVE installed user-base and it left a VERY bad feeling in the UBNT community.
Yep thats one of the reasons I want to diverge from Unifi protect - it's nothing in comparison to what Video was. That and the crap (in comparison) and expensive cameras.
If I stay unifi for the networking side, I've got a cloudkey 2 plus so the UXG-Pro looks decent. When are we likely to see it though?
I really do like the idea of investigating the Qnap, but the cost puts me off trialling it in case its not what I'm after (or its harder to setup/maintain than unifiOS
).
If I stay unifi for the networking side, I've got a cloudkey 2 plus so the UXG-Pro looks decent. When are we likely to see it though?
I really do like the idea of investigating the Qnap, but the cost puts me off trialling it in case its not what I'm after (or its harder to setup/maintain than unifiOS
).
Last edited:
Have Duhua and Hikvision been confirmed that when used exclusively with your own hardware, ie QNAP, that they don't phone home so to speak?
I currently have a USG Pro and 900 Mbps FTTP. It's currently downstairs where my nanoHD is and I want to put the nanoHD upstairs. Would the UDM be a viable alternative or is it worth waiting? Most of my network is 10 Gbps however I don't even think the UDM Pro has 10 Gbps LAN interfaces, are the upcoming UXG going to have them?
according to the specs:
- Processor: Quad ARM Cortex-A57 Core at 1.7 GHz.
- System Memory: 2 GB DDR4.
- 2 x 1/10G SFP+ WAN/LAN Ports.
- 2 x 10/100/1000 RJ45 WAN/LAN Ports.
- 1 x RPS DC Input.
- 1 x Smart Power Outlet 125VAC (Max 10A)
- 1 x 1.3" Color LCD Touch Display.
Yeah I am quite happy with those specs. I sort of think that I can investigate surveillance station and a qnap nas, buy some much better and cheaper cameras, then use the uxg-pro via sfp+ to my switches and my unifiOS network will just chug away as it always has done*.
*hopefully.
We're going to be running a home business as well as myself who WFH full time now, so I need to get it right!
Moving to a new house with a lot more land, which is part of the reason I've revisited the camera technology I use.
*hopefully
.We're going to be running a home business as well as myself who WFH full time now, so I need to get it right!
Moving to a new house with a lot more land, which is part of the reason I've revisited the camera technology I use.
Yes. Because it's QNAP's software. It takes the video stream from the camera. Everything else is controlled by QNAP's software. The same for Blue Iris and Synology. The cameras have full web servers built-in to them and FTP, and a host of other capabilities but none of them populated with information from the factory and the only time they 'phone home' is if you tick the box that says automatically check for updates. And that box comes unchecked from the factory.
Yes, the UDM Pro has two SFP+ interfaces - WAN and LAN.
Hoping you guys can help please? Just got my first place and looking to kit out the network side of things, currently in process of having cable run in various parts of the house.
My main question was around wifi access point placement, I have purchased a U6-LR already. My initial thoughts were to mount the access point to the marked with red X on below floor plan (ground floor) , and already have had a cable run to that point. But now I have read that it might be best to mount the access point somewhere to the first floor landing instead rather than ground floor? Do you think this will make much difference for coverage/throughput around the whole house, bearing in mind the cable has already been run so I will have to pay to get another drop to the new location? The house is a new build (2011) Taylor Wimpey house, internally just chipboard floor and plasterboard walls. Currently on Sky VDSL but FTTP due to be installed here in near future and will upgrade to 1gbps at that point.
Red X = WiFi Point
Blue X = cable drops for TV, Office etc
Orange X = location for all equipment, router, switch etc.
Let me know if you think I'm missing anything else here, plan was to upgrade to dream machine pro, Ubiquiti Switch when the FTTP arrives, but just running of Sky router/POE injector in meantime.
Also considered an outdoor Wifi Point, but don't think it will be necessary, as even the Sky router gets a few metres into the garden already and its not as centrally placed.
Thanks
My main question was around wifi access point placement, I have purchased a U6-LR already. My initial thoughts were to mount the access point to the marked with red X on below floor plan (ground floor) , and already have had a cable run to that point. But now I have read that it might be best to mount the access point somewhere to the first floor landing instead rather than ground floor? Do you think this will make much difference for coverage/throughput around the whole house, bearing in mind the cable has already been run so I will have to pay to get another drop to the new location? The house is a new build (2011) Taylor Wimpey house, internally just chipboard floor and plasterboard walls. Currently on Sky VDSL but FTTP due to be installed here in near future and will upgrade to 1gbps at that point.
Red X = WiFi Point
Blue X = cable drops for TV, Office etc
Orange X = location for all equipment, router, switch etc.
Let me know if you think I'm missing anything else here, plan was to upgrade to dream machine pro, Ubiquiti Switch when the FTTP arrives, but just running of Sky router/POE injector in meantime.
Also considered an outdoor Wifi Point, but don't think it will be necessary, as even the Sky router gets a few metres into the garden already and its not as centrally placed.
Thanks
It will make a significant difference placing it on the upper floor. The disks project their signal down and out in a mushroom/doughnut shape. In short you’ll likely get sub par performance in the upper floor of you go with plan A on the ground floor.
As the cable is already there you can give it a go but don’t be surprised if you are disappointed with the performance.
As the cable is already there you can give it a go but don’t be surprised if you are disappointed with the performance.
Knowledgable folk, I need your help please. Now, I know this is gonna sound like a trivial issue to many, but maybe this will be a learning opportunity for me and others...
So, I have both Unifi Network and Unifi Protect installed on my CKG2+. Both work fine. However, I have an issue with accessing both locally. When I access via https://192.168.1.69/protect/dashboard I get a certificate error. However, when I access via https://unifi.ui.com/dashboard I get no error. In no way is this error affecting the functionality, it's just a PITA.
The certificate error says 'This CA Root certificate is not trusted. To enable trust, install this certificate in the Trusted Root Certification Authorities store'. Also, 'This server could not prove that it is 192.168.1.69; its security certificate is from unifi.local.'
What do I need to do to resolve this error? Thanks in advance!
So, I have both Unifi Network and Unifi Protect installed on my CKG2+. Both work fine. However, I have an issue with accessing both locally. When I access via https://192.168.1.69/protect/dashboard I get a certificate error. However, when I access via https://unifi.ui.com/dashboard I get no error. In no way is this error affecting the functionality, it's just a PITA.
The certificate error says 'This CA Root certificate is not trusted. To enable trust, install this certificate in the Trusted Root Certification Authorities store'. Also, 'This server could not prove that it is 192.168.1.69; its security certificate is from unifi.local.'
What do I need to do to resolve this error? Thanks in advance!
For a house that size you'll probably get away with a single Access Point on the upstairs landing.
Just ignore it or download the cert and add it to your trusted roots.
yup, but I’ve had the cable dropped to the ground floor rather than first floor now. Anyone with experience of this installing to ground floor and will it likely make a significant difference in speeds/coverage upstairs?
I'm the kind of person who will happily ignore things for a while, until I start thinking about them, then they just grate on me
I tried importing through Microsoft Management Console, but it still didn't like it, I'm guessing because my IP address is never gonna match unifi.local.?
Try it and see? Mine is currently downstairs on the ceiling and it's fine although it doesn't cover the garden too well which will improve by mounting it higher.
I'm the kind of person who will happily ignore things for a while, until I start thinking about them, then they just grate on me
I tried importing through Microsoft Management Console, but it still didn't like it, I'm guessing because my IP address is never gonna match unifi.local.?
You need to export the certificate from the browser. The reason it doesn't work via IP address is because the hostname won't match the IP and it's a system generated certificate, ie, self signed. Usually once you ignore it in a browser it should remember that choice but the behaviour varies.