> It seems you are fairly new to this list. I only see postings going back > about a month from you. So with this bit of looking up, I am wondering > if you have bothered looking back in the archives at the fact that all > of this has been addressed in the past. The only reason you haven't seen > someone from Digium getting into this every few months when one of you > lazy newbies get on the list and can't be bothered to look back through > the archives is because it would quickly get to the point of always > answering the same stupid questions to a select small lazy group.
That's the point of a FAQ. I've read a half dozen FAQs about Asterisk and none say "Digium's offical response is X" -- they all hint at it just like I did. I've been on IRC for about 6 weeks now, and even there there is no offical response, just a lot of hemming and hawing and speculation, just as I had done. I have a pretty damned good idea why they're using the timing source they are. My pretty damned good idea is, however, just speculation, just as every other response I've seen. I wasn't asking the question originally, I was answering Anton's question. If this was addressed officially some time in the past, I sincerely apologize for bashing Digium's lack of response. However if all that has been done in the past was this speculation and hand-waving, then my point stands. It takes a minute to put it in the FAQ and perhaps even the Handbook; most newbies do read that stuff, so why not help 'em out? > Some one else here has mentioned the quality of software design due to > the need for hardware timing. This should be addressed by the fact that > many tools are using hardware timing. Mp3 players use the sound device > as a timing source. They can only be feed so much data at a time as it > is being serviced. When you can feed it more, you do. In the case of the > mp3s on voip only systems, the mp3 player no longer is directly coupled > to a device that can control speed. The mp3 player is dumping data as > quickly as it can, and as asterisk tosses it into the correct format and > gets it out on the ethernet wire, it can then service more data. In the > case of Digium hardware, or the appropriate dummy drivers, we get a > timing source to directly couple to the channels. I agree -- I think what that particular poster's point was was that there are already sufficiently jitter-free timing sources in the PC and that it seemed assinine to add another for a paltry 1KHz (IIRC). He has a point, but (again, speculation) Asterisk boxes may or may not have RTCs or even USB ports, and using a processor-specific timer is even worse for portability. By locking on to an add-on card that can be added to any system with a PCI bus, Asterisk gains portability. And again, where is the official Digium response? This is all speculation. I was just putting out a request to end this stupidity and have an official response so everyone can point to it and say "that's why." I didn't think it'd end up in this mini flame war. Regards, Andrew _______________________________________________ Asterisk-Users mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
