Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Stephen Bosch wrote: Lee Jenkins wrote: Stefano Corsi wrote: [snip] The nice things about GUI's in my opinion is that routine chores such as setting up extensions, dialing extensions, hunt groups, etc. are less likely to contain scripting bugs or typos. The downside from what I gather with many GUI's is that the friendly abstraction that insulates you from the nuts and bolts of scripting and configuration also makes it difficult to customize the dialplan in some cases. It also makes troubleshooting problems a handful-and-a-half. And woe is you if you need kernel customizations to make your hardware work. Not to start a flame-war, but I completely disagree. Troubleshooting a GUI is much easier, given that you don't have to scout for typos, transposed numbers, etc throughout the dialplan. With the GUI, you have to double check the information that you input into the GUI, but that's it. As for hardware, it should be no more difficult to get Trixbox to play nicely with hardware than any other Asterisk install. You may have to patch and/or recompile zaptel, asterisk, etc, but that's no different than what you would have to do with a non-Trixbox install. (and you really shouldn't have to in almost all cases) I would say this -- if all you're ever going to use is VOIP trunks, by all means use Trixbox. It's great for that. But if you're using any kind of PSTN hardware (TDM cards, Sangoma) just stick with straight Asterisk. Are you kidding? Sangoma actually has a version of Trixbox on their site that comes bundled with their drivers already installed (see http://wiki.sangoma.com/Trixbox-1xx ). All you have to do is configure the card(s) in the same way as you would with any Asterisk install. I've just had my second go at Trixbox (version 2.0 now) and after wasting a bunch of time with hardware problems, I'm going to replace it with a generic install. I would suggest (hopefully politely) that you not blame your lack of experience and ability on Trixbox. If you can get the Sangoma wanrouter software downloaded and compiled, along with Zaptel, Asterisk, libpri, etc, then you can certainly do the same on Trixbox, because all you have to do is yum search wanpipe and then yum install the modules and utils packages. Once installed, follow the instructions on Sangoma's website to configure the card. If all else fails, you can easily call for support from Sangoma. Even if you choose not to use yum, it's just as easy to get a Sangoma board working under Trixbox as it is for any other Asterisk install. Here's another reason to seriously consider generic: the userbase is larger, AND they're more likely to know what they're talking about when a problem does arise. Trixbox attracts a lot of amateurs who are themselves new to IP telephony; that's why they choose it. Valid point, but FreePBX (the program Trixbox uses for GUI Asteirsk config) also has a large userbase, and a number of Trixbox problems are not Trixbox specific, and can be addressed by the Asterisk community as a whole. Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it. There is a good reason people don't stick with it for long. Many people do not stick with Trixbox for long, and many others do. The crux of the issue is this: FreePBX/Trixbox, and most other GUIs will make it easier to get your system up and running, and they make it easier to maintain it, make changes, etc. (I am defining easier as requiring less technical familiarity with the underpinnings of exactly what is going on as well as less intimidating and error prone since no manual editing of configuration files is required.) On the other hand, emacs/vi/pico/whatevereditoryouprefer and the text config files without a GUI are more difficult, but offer greater flexibility. S it comes down to Which is more important to you? Ease of use for you and/or your clients (who may want to control adds/moves, etc.) or greater flexibility and control? Once you answer that question, you can answer the question Which is better for me? The correct answer to that question may very well be different for you than it is for me. (and it may be different for you six months from now than it is today.) Tom ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Tom Rymes wrote: On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Stephen Bosch wrote: Lee Jenkins wrote: Stefano Corsi wrote: [snip] The nice things about GUI's in my opinion is that routine chores such as setting up extensions, dialing extensions, hunt groups, etc. are less likely to contain scripting bugs or typos. The downside from what I gather with many GUI's is that the friendly abstraction that insulates you from the nuts and bolts of scripting and configuration also makes it difficult to customize the dialplan in some cases. It also makes troubleshooting problems a handful-and-a-half. And woe is you if you need kernel customizations to make your hardware work. Not to start a flame-war, but I completely disagree. Troubleshooting a GUI is much easier, given that you don't have to scout for typos, transposed numbers, etc throughout the dialplan. With the GUI, you have to double check the information that you input into the GUI, but that's it. As for hardware, it should be no more difficult to get Trixbox to play nicely with hardware than any other Asterisk install. You may have to patch and/or recompile zaptel, asterisk, etc, but that's no different than what you would have to do with a non-Trixbox install. Hmmm... I installed a trixbox system. 'yum update' failed to work, due to funny games with yum's configuration. A default centos server installation did not have the same issue. This is just one example. (and you really shouldn't have to in almost all cases) A GUI does its absraction. By that it hides some information that it deems irrelevant. In many cases this information is relevant. One example: just figuring out if FreePBX actually dial, or not at all, requires either a sufficiently-trained asterisk guy to review the log/cli just to understand why a call did not go through. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Tom Rymes wrote: On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Stephen Bosch wrote: Lee Jenkins wrote: Stefano Corsi wrote: The nice things about GUI's in my opinion is that routine chores such as setting up extensions, dialing extensions, hunt groups, etc. are less likely to contain scripting bugs or typos. The downside from what I gather with many GUI's is that the friendly abstraction that insulates you from the nuts and bolts of scripting and configuration also makes it difficult to customize the dialplan in some cases. It also makes troubleshooting problems a handful-and-a-half. And woe is you if you need kernel customizations to make your hardware work. Not to start a flame-war, but I completely disagree. Troubleshooting a GUI is much easier, given that you don't have to scout for typos, transposed numbers, etc throughout the dialplan. With the GUI, you have to double check the information that you input into the GUI, but that's it. As for hardware, it should be no more difficult to get Trixbox to play nicely with hardware than any other Asterisk install. You may have to patch and/or recompile zaptel, asterisk, etc, but that's no different than what you would have to do with a non-Trixbox install. (and you really shouldn't have to in almost all cases) I come from the practice of compiling everything from sources because binary distributions -- be they of Asterisk or any other Linux or Linux application -- are unreliable. Nobody knows what hardware you're running but you; compiling from sources gives you a better chance of ending up with a result that works. I used to use binary distributions; that's when I had the most trouble getting stuff working. I did one source installation and never looked back. Not for everybody, sure -- but I find I waste less time if I just build the damn thing from scratch. There are distros that let you do this more easily (Gentoo comes to mind). And troubleshooting a GUI is *not* easier if there is something wrong with the GUI. Now you're not troubleshooting anymore -- you're debugging. How painful that is for me is a question of depth of documentation. Trixbox' documentation is not great. I'm not just shooting my mouth off. I speak from experience here. I would say this -- if all you're ever going to use is VOIP trunks, by all means use Trixbox. It's great for that. But if you're using any kind of PSTN hardware (TDM cards, Sangoma) just stick with straight Asterisk. Are you kidding? Sangoma actually has a version of Trixbox on their site that comes bundled with their drivers already installed (see http://wiki.sangoma.com/Trixbox-1xx ). All you have to do is configure the card(s) in the same way as you would with any Asterisk install. Having to hunt around for packages and drivers in multiple locations cancels the benefit of a 1 hour and you're up install of anything. (I respectfully challenge that assertion, anyway -- it was never in danger of being anywhere near that for me, because things didn't work out of the box.) Here's another reason to seriously consider generic: the userbase is larger, AND they're more likely to know what they're talking about when a problem does arise. Trixbox attracts a lot of amateurs who are themselves new to IP telephony; that's why they choose it. Valid point, but FreePBX (the program Trixbox uses for GUI Asteirsk config) also has a large userbase, and a number of Trixbox problems are not Trixbox specific, and can be addressed by the Asterisk community as a whole. Have a look at the list archives and see how Trixbox questions are handled by the list membership. It doesn't build confidence. Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it. There is a good reason people don't stick with it for long. Many people do not stick with Trixbox for long, and many others do. The crux of the issue is this: FreePBX/Trixbox, and most other GUIs will make it easier to get your system up and running, and they make it easier to maintain it, make changes, etc. (I am defining easier as requiring less technical familiarity with the underpinnings of exactly what is going on as well as less intimidating and error prone since no manual editing of configuration files is required.) Fair enough -- and this would be fine for me if things just worked. They often don't. Then I'm back to On the other hand, emacs/vi/pico/whatevereditoryouprefer and the text config files without a GUI are more difficult, but offer greater flexibility with all of the disadvantages and none of the advantages. Anyway, that was my input; your mileage may vary. -Stephen- ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:53:17AM -0700, Stephen Bosch wrote: Tom Rymes wrote: On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Stephen Bosch wrote: Lee Jenkins wrote: Stefano Corsi wrote: The nice things about GUI's in my opinion is that routine chores such as setting up extensions, dialing extensions, hunt groups, etc. are less likely to contain scripting bugs or typos. The downside from what I gather with many GUI's is that the friendly abstraction that insulates you from the nuts and bolts of scripting and configuration also makes it difficult to customize the dialplan in some cases. It also makes troubleshooting problems a handful-and-a-half. And woe is you if you need kernel customizations to make your hardware work. Not to start a flame-war, but I completely disagree. Troubleshooting a GUI is much easier, given that you don't have to scout for typos, transposed numbers, etc throughout the dialplan. With the GUI, you have to double check the information that you input into the GUI, but that's it. As for hardware, it should be no more difficult to get Trixbox to play nicely with hardware than any other Asterisk install. You may have to patch and/or recompile zaptel, asterisk, etc, but that's no different than what you would have to do with a non-Trixbox install. (and you really shouldn't have to in almost all cases) I come from the practice of compiling everything from sources because binary distributions -- be they of Asterisk or any other Linux or Linux application -- are unreliable. Nobody knows what hardware you're running but you; compiling from sources gives you a better chance of ending up with a result that works. I used to use binary distributions; that's when I had the most trouble getting stuff working. I did one source installation and never looked back. You can take those binary packages and rebuild them when you need so. rpm, deb and similar provide a very strong method of reproducable builds. Well-built packages also tend to work better than a simple 'make install' because they are better debugged. -- Tzafrir Cohen icq#16849755jabber:[EMAIL PROTECTED] +972-50-7952406 mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.xorcom.com iax:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/tzafrir ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Tzafrir Cohen wrote: On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Tom Rymes wrote: [snip] Not to start a flame-war, but I completely disagree. Troubleshooting a GUI is much easier, given that you don't have to scout for typos, transposed numbers, etc throughout the dialplan. With the GUI, you have to double check the information that you input into the GUI, but that's it. As for hardware, it should be no more difficult to get Trixbox to play nicely with hardware than any other Asterisk install. You may have to patch and/or recompile zaptel, asterisk, etc, but that's no different than what you would have to do with a non-Trixbox install. Hmmm... I installed a trixbox system. 'yum update' failed to work, due to funny games with yum's configuration. A default centos server installation did not have the same issue. This is just one example. I have never run into this problem before, and the only change that I know of was to exclude the kernel from updates (to avoid having to recompile zaptel) Of course, if you want to update the kernel, change the yum settings and download and recompile zaptel. YMMV, so if it doesn't work for you, then act accordingly, I suppose. As a counterpoint to your example, I have installed Trixbox easily and successfuly many times with Sangoma hardware. (and you really shouldn't have to in almost all cases) A GUI does its absraction. By that it hides some information that it deems irrelevant. In many cases this information is relevant. My point that you quoted originally referred to the fact that you shouldn't normally have to recompile Zaptel, Asterisk, or anything else to get hardware working with Trixbox. As for your comment about the GUI, I agree. My earlier e-mail tried to state that neither the GUI or the non-GUI method of installing and configuring Asterisk is better. The GUI is better for some, whereas the non-GUI is better for others. If the limitations imposed by the GUI are too much for your application, then the GUI isn't for you. If the relative difficulty of administering an Asterisk server without a GUI is too much for your application, then use the GUI. One example: just figuring out if FreePBX actually dial, or not at all, requires either a sufficiently-trained asterisk guy to review the log/cli just to understand why a call did not go through. I fail to see how this is different from a non-FreePBX setup? Don't you still need a sufficiently-trained Asterisk Guy to view the logs and CLI to determine why your custom dialplan didn't dial? Not to mention to create that custom dialplan in the first place? How does troubleshooting a non-GUI asterisk install require less technical know-how than troubleshooting a Free-PBX system? Anyhow, I reiterate that I don't think that either solution is better than the other. Determine your requirements, weigh the pros and cons of the various GUIs and of running without a GUI and see which is the best fit for your requirements. I only object to those who say that No one should use Trixbox/FreePBX, it's too restrictive or Running Asterisk with a GUI is always Better. Both statements are erroneous. Tom ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
[asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Hello, I'm following the thread [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs Trixbox, and I have a similar question: if someone is going to install Asterisk, FreePBX and A2Billing, should you advice him/her to use Trixbox ... or a custom step by step installation on a distribution of his/her choice? Thanks Stefano ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Hi, I'd recommend if you need quick and easy setup - use [EMAIL PROTECTED] or Trixbox or something like this, and if you need customized setup and want to understand system in detail - use your favorite distribution and setup * from sources. I'm prefer Slackware for any * installation, but your coise on your own. -- Sincerely, Elman Efendiyev PROTECH INC. -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Stefano Corsi Sent: Monday, 12 February, 2007 18:42 To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion Subject: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install Hello, I'm following the thread [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs Trixbox, and I have a similar question: if someone is going to install Asterisk, FreePBX and A2Billing, should you advice him/her to use Trixbox ... or a custom step by step installation on a distribution of his/her choice? Thanks Stefano ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Stefano Corsi wrote: Hello, I'm following the thread [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs Trixbox, and I have a similar question: if someone is going to install Asterisk, FreePBX and A2Billing, should you advice him/her to use Trixbox ... or a custom step by step installation on a distribution of his/her choice? I started by trying out [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found that learning Asterisk internals was a bit more challenging trying to read and understand the [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripts. Eventually, I ended up writing a Windows GUI of my own to help learn Asterisk. The nice things about GUI's in my opinion is that routine chores such as setting up extensions, dialing extensions, hunt groups, etc. are less likely to contain scripting bugs or typos. The downside from what I gather with many GUI's is that the friendly abstraction that insulates you from the nuts and bolts of scripting and configuration also makes it difficult to customize the dialplan in some cases. Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it. Now, I just use my own GUI for everything from graphical setup to scripting. -- Warm Regards, Lee ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
RE: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it. Now, I just use my own GUI for everything from graphical setup to scripting. There is nothing wrong with starting out with Trixbox. I still use it because I like the Linux distro (CentOS) and I like the fact that it sets up lots of stuff that I don't have to bother with. I used Trixbox to learn a lot about how to use Asterisk, then I went back and did a clean install on a separate machine to learn about setting up and installing Asterisk. For me, having a working system first, playing with it, breaking it, etc. was very useful because it gave me perspective when setting up a system from scratch. Now I actually have two systems to play with: one Trixbox and one scratch * install. (I get the best of both worlds, but I have nothing in production just yet. I'll decide later which way to go once I'm doing playing with my two 'sandboxes.') Bottom line is this: you need to start somewhere. Would you rather start by using a working system or by building from the ground up? Neither way is perfect for everyone. If you have the luxury of doing both then I can highly recommend it - each method has taught me valuable lessons that the other method didn't. HTH... -MC ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Michael Collins wrote: Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it. Now, I just use my own GUI for everything from graphical setup to scripting. There is nothing wrong with starting out with Trixbox. I still use it because I like the Linux distro (CentOS) and I like the fact that it sets up lots of stuff that I don't have to bother with. I used Trixbox to learn a lot about how to use Asterisk, then I went back and did a clean install on a separate machine to learn about setting up and installing Asterisk. For me, having a working system first, playing with it, breaking it, etc. was very useful because it gave me perspective when setting up a system from scratch. Now I actually have two systems to play with: one Trixbox and one scratch * install. (I get the best of both worlds, but I have nothing in production just yet. I'll decide later which way to go once I'm doing playing with my two 'sandboxes.') Bottom line is this: you need to start somewhere. Would you rather start by using a working system or by building from the ground up? Neither way is perfect for everyone. If you have the luxury of doing both then I can highly recommend it - each method has taught me valuable lessons that the other method didn't. [EMAIL PROTECTED] was very nice so I can only assume that TrixBox is great. An associate of mine (whom got me interested in Asterisk) sells TrixBox systems like they're going out of style. I was merely relaying my own experience and agree with you that no way is ever perfect and the more choices we have, the better. Personally, I tend to learn new concepts better if I build a solid foundation of the basics first so starting with a bare asterisk install ended up working better for me. -- Warm Regards, Lee ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Lee Jenkins wrote: Stefano Corsi wrote: Hello, I'm following the thread [EMAIL PROTECTED] vs Trixbox, and I have a similar question: if someone is going to install Asterisk, FreePBX and A2Billing, should you advice him/her to use Trixbox ... or a custom step by step installation on a distribution of his/her choice? I started by trying out [EMAIL PROTECTED] I found that learning Asterisk internals was a bit more challenging trying to read and understand the [EMAIL PROTECTED] scripts. Eventually, I ended up writing a Windows GUI of my own to help learn Asterisk. The nice things about GUI's in my opinion is that routine chores such as setting up extensions, dialing extensions, hunt groups, etc. are less likely to contain scripting bugs or typos. The downside from what I gather with many GUI's is that the friendly abstraction that insulates you from the nuts and bolts of scripting and configuration also makes it difficult to customize the dialplan in some cases. It also makes troubleshooting problems a handful-and-a-half. And woe is you if you need kernel customizations to make your hardware work. I would say this -- if all you're ever going to use is VOIP trunks, by all means use Trixbox. It's great for that. But if you're using any kind of PSTN hardware (TDM cards, Sangoma) just stick with straight Asterisk. I've just had my second go at Trixbox (version 2.0 now) and after wasting a bunch of time with hardware problems, I'm going to replace it with a generic install. Here's another reason to seriously consider generic: the userbase is larger, AND they're more likely to know what they're talking about when a problem does arise. Trixbox attracts a lot of amateurs who are themselves new to IP telephony; that's why they choose it. Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it. There is a good reason people don't stick with it for long. -Stephen- ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install
Michael Collins wrote: Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried [EMAIL PROTECTED] (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it. Now, I just use my own GUI for everything from graphical setup to scripting. There is nothing wrong with starting out with Trixbox. I still use it because I like the Linux distro (CentOS) and I like the fact that it sets up lots of stuff that I don't have to bother with. I used Trixbox to learn a lot about how to use Asterisk, then I went back and did a clean install on a separate machine to learn about setting up and installing Asterisk. For me, having a working system first, playing with it, breaking it, etc. was very useful because it gave me perspective when setting up a system from scratch. Now I actually have two systems to play with: one Trixbox and one scratch * install. (I get the best of both worlds, but I have nothing in production just yet. I'll decide later which way to go once I'm doing playing with my two 'sandboxes.') This is a fair statement, unless you can't get Trixbox working in the first place. -Stephen- ___ --Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com -- asterisk-users mailing list To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users