Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Discuss with the community any ideas you'd love to see in future DiskStations and DSM updates! We do our best to monitor and forward all of them, but we recommend to also use this form as our team will systematically see your suggestion:
https://www.synology.com/en-global/form ... y/feedback
Forum rules
We do our best to monitor and forward your ideas to our team, but due to the large amount, we may not see every single one and recommend to also use this form as our team will systematically see your suggestion:
https://www.synology.com/en-global/form ... y/feedback
Flopper
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby Flopper » Tue Mar 26, 2013 12:39 pm

Almost a YEAR later .... hum, they are to busy developing gadgets for home use.

Business customers are not important anymore these days, BUT, they forget that an unsatisfied business customers changes hardware far more often than a home user, and that is where they go wrong, business will go elsewhere due to lack of support and respect!
Some people spent a lot of time writing the Help files, use it!
Do not expect serious answers if it can be found by searching for it yourself.
User avatar
CoolRaoul
Seasoned
Seasoned
Posts: 550
Joined: Tue May 18, 2010 7:08 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby CoolRaoul » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:35 pm

jetspeedz wrote:Come on Synology, this is not that hard to implement. Phones with slower processors and much less RAM and no scratch disk have this capability. No reason why there can't be a Browser package for the DSM.


It's not a question of CPU Power or amount of RAM (although on entry level DS2XXJ models this also could be an issue)

There is a huge difference between a phone and a NAS: phones have an integrated display and their OS include graphics libraries.

Existing browsers engines (gecko for Firefox, webkit for chrome and others, etc...) are built on top of those existing graphics libraries to provide user interaction.

Achieving the same result on a NAS, which doesn't have proper hardware support neither graphics libraries (X11 under Unix), would be ways harder to implement that you can imagine. In any case, no existing browser source code could be ported on a NAS without a lot of work.

And since one already use a browser to access the NAS, I can't hardly imagine the purpose of an embedded one?
CR
Flopper
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby Flopper » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:53 pm

And since one already use a browser to access the NAS, I can't hardly imagine the purpose of an embedded one?


If you would have READ the entire thread, the purpose it to have access to a device, like a cam with a built in http server, THROUGH your browser and THROUGH the DSM console, so without opening ports for every cam.

And I think if one can put a mini webserver in about any device these days, even the smallest cam, surely putting a minimalistic browser in a DS should not pose a problem. Performance is the least of the problems.
Synology just lacks interest, no more, no less.
Some people spent a lot of time writing the Help files, use it!
Do not expect serious answers if it can be found by searching for it yourself.
timfy
Experienced
Experienced
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Nov 24, 2011 11:36 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby timfy » Tue Mar 26, 2013 2:55 pm

Flopper wrote:
And since one already use a browser to access the NAS, I can't hardly imagine the purpose of an embedded one?


If you would have READ the entire thread, the purpose it to have access to a device, like a cam with a built in http server, THROUGH your browser and THROUGH the DSM console, so without opening ports for every cam.

And I think if one can put a mini webserver in about any device these days, even the smallest cam, surely putting a minimalistic browser in a DS should not pose a problem. Performance is the least of the problems.
Synology just lacks interest, no more, no less.


What's wrong with using a tabbed browser with DSM in one and the cam(s) in other(s)? I do this with multiple devices on my LAN that have HTTP management interfaces, I never feel the need to do it inside DSM.
Flopper
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby Flopper » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:16 pm

You don't get it do you?

How are you going to browse to a cam on, let's say port 8888, from outside that LAN if that port is not open?

Better still, suppose you have 4 cams on a LAN, all configured with port 80 as default, how would you access the from outside the LAN?

THAT is why, once connected to the DS through port 5000, only THEN the NAS would be able to 'browse' the LAN on several addresses.

And I know VPN is an option, but then again, it is not if the customer does not want it, or the ISP does not allow it.
Some people spent a lot of time writing the Help files, use it!
Do not expect serious answers if it can be found by searching for it yourself.
pwhooftman
Seasoned
Seasoned
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:53 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby pwhooftman » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:29 pm

Flopper wrote:
And since one already use a browser to access the NAS, I can't hardly imagine the purpose of an embedded one?


If you would have READ the entire thread, the purpose it to have access to a device, like a cam with a built in http server, THROUGH your browser and THROUGH the DSM console, so without opening ports for every cam.

And I think if one can put a mini webserver in about any device these days, even the smallest cam, surely putting a minimalistic browser in a DS should not pose a problem. Performance is the least of the problems.
Synology just lacks interest, no more, no less.



Whooo, Flopper, i can imagine being agitated by BannedUser, but you are going a bit out of your league also. It doesn't have to be a matter of (not) having interest, but think of the following:

- Synology would have to put al LOT of effort in making it safe, and let users define what is safe. Without the right settings, users would open up all their local http services.
- When you are asking for a 'browser in a browser', you are actually looking for a remote desktop like approach. That's not really minimalistic.
- Your goals can already be achieved by setting up a reverse proxy, by a vpn, by a SSH Tunnel, so why need more options? Your goal isn't quite an entry-level mainstream consumer goal.
- Your goals can be achieved by remote managing the router also.
- If achieving what you want is not possible because you have no remote access to the router setup, to setting up a vpn, to a SSH tunnel, well, you weren't meant to have access.

So i have to agree here that the request is not widely needed enough to be created by Synology.

Update: while typing this, i read your newest post.

How are you going to browse to a cam on, let's say port 8888, from outside that LAN if that port is not open?
Better still, suppose you have 4 cams on a LAN, all configured with port 80 as default, how would you access the from outside the LAN?


Well, youre not supposed to if the ports arent open! Or use a reverse proxy, you can set that up on the Diskstation.

How can i enter if the door is locked? Ask for the key! (Open the ports).

But back to the first post, why is it a problem that the cams are op port 80?
DS412+ with 3x2Tb WD Red
Flopper
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby Flopper » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:40 pm

Jee, there really a bunch of hard headed people around here!

First:
Your goal isn't quite an entry-level mainstream consumer goal.

No it is not indeed, this is NOT for a home user, we are BUSNESS customers.

To further explain what no-one seems to get:

It is OUR warehouse, with OUR cams, but with a limitation imposed by the ISP (we do not have a choice at this location).
So, WE know what we are doing, remote desktop like function do not apply since there is NO PC on site, only the NAS. We are allowed top open more than 2 ports, so 5000 s already one of it. That leaves us with 3 times port 80, or whatever, which we cannot access.

Security is always an issue, especially if you actually start opening more ports, so your theory back fires.

We have several BUSINESS customers in similar situations, shared internet in big buildings, we only get 1 port per customer, so... THAT is why we need a bypass, for thing WE control.
So yes, we have the 'key', but it only opens the main door ;)
Some people spent a lot of time writing the Help files, use it!
Do not expect serious answers if it can be found by searching for it yourself.
Flopper
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby Flopper » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:43 pm

But back to the first post, why is it a problem that the cams are op port 80?


If you have 4 cams on port 80, how are you going to forward 1 port to them?
You could use 4 different WAN ports an forward the to each port 80 from each cam, but if you read my previous post, we are limited in open ports.
Some people spent a lot of time writing the Help files, use it!
Do not expect serious answers if it can be found by searching for it yourself.
pwhooftman
Seasoned
Seasoned
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:53 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby pwhooftman » Tue Mar 26, 2013 3:52 pm

Flopper wrote:Jee, there really a bunch of hard headed people around here!

First:
Your goal isn't quite an entry-level mainstream consumer goal.

No it is not indeed, this is NOT for a home user, we are BUSNESS customers.

To further explain what no-one seems to get:

It is OUR warehouse, with OUR cams, but with a limitation imposed by the ISP (we do not have a choice at this location).
So, WE know what we are doing, remote desktop like function do not apply since there is NO PC on site, only the NAS. We are allowed top open more than 2 ports, so 5000 s already one of it. That leaves us with 3 times port 80, or whatever, which we cannot access.

Security is always an issue, especially if you actually start opening more ports, so your theory back fires.

We have several BUSINESS customers in similar situations, shared internet in big buildings, we only get 1 port per customer, so... THAT is why we need a bypass, for thing WE control.
So yes, we have the 'key', but it only opens the main door ;)


Hi,

Then the only option i see is setting up a reverse proxy in the Apache server on the Diskstation. It give you an almost unlimited 'forwarding' via one port 5000 (or 80 for that matter). But beware, you'll have to set up a domain per building, like building1.com, building2.com.
By setting up the reverse proxy right, you can achieve that
cam1.building1.com:5000 goes to //192.168.0.101:80 (assuming thats the cams address)
cam2.building1.com:5000 goes to //192.168.0.102:80 (assuming thats the cams address)
cam3.building1.com:5000 goes to //192.168.0.103:80 (assuming thats the cams address)
cam4.building1.com:5000 goes to //192.168.0.104:80 (assuming thats the cams address)
transparantly from the outside. You are opening up the cams http service to the world btw.

The reverse proxy rules can be administered remotely, i.e. by installing the 3rd party app Config Editor on the Diskstation, but beware, altering the reverse proxy rules requiers restarting teh Apache server. If you mess up (one typo!), you have locked yourself out because apache wont start.

Again: why is it a problem to just leave the cams at port 80? Surveillance Station is able to connect to them, isn't it?

Heh, i'm learning to be hard headed quite nicely from you, i'm even start to like BannedUser :wink:
DS412+ with 3x2Tb WD Red
Flopper
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby Flopper » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:07 pm

It is a nice suggestion you make but we already tried all that. Bottom line, far to complex to quickly set-up and maintain.

Again: why is it a problem to just leave the cams at port 80? Surveillance Station is able to connect to them, isn't it?

Here goes the hard head again, watch it: you can access Surveillance Station, yes, but you CANNOT modify any settings on the cams themselves.

BTW, there is a SERIOUS bug in Surveillance station regarding Motion detection on cams, it actually overwrites the cam's settings!! That is one of the reasons we need this.
Synology support is aware of that, and they will ... hum ... look into it .. probably in the year 2020 or so....
Some people spent a lot of time writing the Help files, use it!
Do not expect serious answers if it can be found by searching for it yourself.
pwhooftman
Seasoned
Seasoned
Posts: 588
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2013 7:53 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby pwhooftman » Tue Mar 26, 2013 4:11 pm

Flopper wrote:It is a nice suggestion you make but we already tried all that. Bottom line, far to complex to quickly set-up and maintain.

Again: why is it a problem to just leave the cams at port 80? Surveillance Station is able to connect to them, isn't it?

Here goes the hard head again, watch it: you can access Surveillance Station, yes, but you CANNOT modify any settings on the cams themselves.

BTW, there is a SERIOUS bug in Surveillance station regarding Motion detection on cams, it actually overwrites the cam's settings!! That is one of the reasons we need this.
Synology support is aware of that, and they will ... hum ... look into it .. probably in the year 2020 or so....



Wow! It took you a zillion posts to finally explain what you need it for, and to tell me you already tried reverse proxy. That was to complex for you but being a dick head to people trying to help you wasn't. Good luck with your hard headed life.
DS412+ with 3x2Tb WD Red
Flopper
Navigator
Navigator
Posts: 971
Joined: Tue Nov 09, 2010 6:00 pm

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby Flopper » Tue Mar 26, 2013 5:00 pm

Hold on, I did NOT say it is to complex for me, it is just to complex to do that over and over again, and, if you read the entire thread, I already mentioned that we send other people from our team on the road who do not have that level of know-how.

Well, let's leave it at this shall we, it is never going to happen anyway...
Some people spent a lot of time writing the Help files, use it!
Do not expect serious answers if it can be found by searching for it yourself.
User avatar
spamsupernova
I'm New!
I'm New!
Posts: 7
Joined: Fri Oct 09, 2015 10:41 am

Re: Suggestion, request - Build-in browser

Postby spamsupernova » Wed Sep 13, 2017 10:53 am

Ressurectin the topic from the graveyard...

Look what the synology rivals are offering:
https://www.qnap.com/solution/browser-station/fr-fr/

It looks like the discussion about why a browser inside a browser is now answered. No more trolling about this being an useless feature. Need to push more Synology in implementing this.

Return to “Feature Requests & Product Improvement Suggestions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests