On Mon, Sep 01, 2008 at 03:27:27PM +0100, Stroller wrote: > > On 31 Aug 2008, at 12:46, Ole Kliemann wrote: > > Are you by any chance associated with a VoIP company and afraid of > > people making no-connect/no-cost calls all the time? ;-) > > No, not at all. > > But I figured that since you're going to have to pay to fetch the > data anyway, I couldn't see much saving with this drop-calling > shenanigans. You appear to have proved me right with your subsequent > calculations.
If IMAP-idle works in a stable manner with muxing. Otherwise the interval checking will add considerable extra costs. Right now there is no muxing as far as I know. > What relevance does VoIP have here - if you run VoIP on your > Freerunner you're going to have to pay data rates on that. I think I wasn't clear about my idea. The VoIP is just a contingent factor here. It's just about making a call to the FR with a certain number transmitted as the caller's number. This number is interpreted by the FR as a certain signal. Consequently the call is not accepted and an action associated with the signal is executed. You could make these signalling call from any phone, using any infrastructure you like. But using VoIP gives you a good interface between a computer and the calling device. If you would use a normal phone to call the FR, you would need to interface it with a computer. Using VoIP on the calling side it's easy to check for mails and a server and then call the FR from the server. VoIP is not running on the FR in anyway. > Or are you > thinking I'm a VoIP exec protesting against your use of a VoIP > provider for making drop-calls? Actually I'm not quite sure what your motivation is - except that you just don't like my idea. ;-) Ole
pgpewt1iEMcqj.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Openmoko community mailing list [email protected] http://lists.openmoko.org/mailman/listinfo/community
