Re: [asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install

2007-02-13 Thread Tom Rymes

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

2007-02-13 Thread Tzafrir Cohen
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

2007-02-13 Thread Stephen Bosch
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

2007-02-13 Thread Tzafrir Cohen
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

2007-02-13 Thread Tom Rymes

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

2007-02-12 Thread Stefano Corsi

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

2007-02-12 Thread Elman Efendiyev
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

2007-02-12 Thread Lee Jenkins

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

2007-02-12 Thread Michael Collins
 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

2007-02-12 Thread Lee Jenkins

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

2007-02-12 Thread Stephen Bosch
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

2007-02-12 Thread Stephen Bosch
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