On Tue, Dec 10, 2013 at 08:43:01PM -0500, Brian wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:02:45 +0200
> Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:12:41PM -0500, Ruddy Gbaguidi wrote:
> > > I never tought this is become a Linux vs Windows fight.
> > > We have been using asterisk on linux from a
On Wed, Dec 4, 2013 at 10:19 AM, CDR wrote:
> Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
> version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework in Windows,
> something simple to install, they could go public on the product.
> Linux has a very steep learning curve. A W
On Tue, 10 Dec 2013 23:02:45 +0200
Tzafrir Cohen wrote:
> On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:12:41PM -0500, Ruddy Gbaguidi wrote:
> > I never tought this is become a Linux vs Windows fight.
> > We have been using asterisk on linux from a long time now and happy
> > with it.
> > But some of our customers
On Wed, Dec 04, 2013 at 02:12:41PM -0500, Ruddy Gbaguidi wrote:
> I never tought this is become a Linux vs Windows fight.
> We have been using asterisk on linux from a long time now and happy
> with it.
> But some of our customers who has windows in their environment want
> to use our call center s
Use FreeSWITCH !! Thats what you want on your winblows system, so suit
yourself my friend.
Mitul
On Dec 5, 2013 12:43 AM, "Ruddy Gbaguidi" wrote:
> I never tought this is become a Linux vs Windows fight.
> We have been using asterisk on linux from a long time now and happy with
> it.
> But some
I never tought this is become a Linux vs Windows fight.
We have been using asterisk on linux from a long time now and happy with
it.
But some of our customers who has windows in their environment want to
use our call center software we developed on top of asterisk.
So, the question was :
Did an
Probably feeding the trolls but here it goes.
On 12/04/2013 04:19 PM, CDR wrote:
> Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
> version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework in Windows,
> something simple to install, they could go public on the product.
IIRC M
I know who is lost here :)
for sure not digium ...
--
_
-- Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com --
New to Asterisk? Join us for a live introductory webinar every Thurs:
http://www.asterisk
On 12/04/2013 11:00 AM, Paul Belanger wrote:
> On 13-12-04 10:19 AM, CDR wrote:
>> Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
>> version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework in Windows,
>> something simple to install, they could go public on the product.
>> Linu
On Wednesday 04 December 2013, CDR wrote:
> Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
> version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework in Windows,
> something simple to install, they could go public on the product.
Why would they? They already have it working w
m] On Behalf Of CDR
> Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:19 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: [asterisk-users] Asterisk on Windows
>
> Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid version
> of Asterisk, one that would
On 13-12-04 10:19 AM, CDR wrote:
Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework in Windows,
something simple to install, they could go public on the product.
Linux has a very steep learning curve. A Windows application
t;
>-Original Message-
>From: asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com
>[mailto:asterisk-users-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of CDR
>Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:19 AM
>To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
>Subject: [asterisk-users] Asteris
-boun...@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of CDR
Sent: Wednesday, December 04, 2013 10:19 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: [asterisk-users] Asterisk on Windows
Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid version of
Asterisk, one that would us
On 12/04/2013 10:22 AM, Gregory Malsack wrote:
Its beyond disgusting. If it was not for legacy garbage nothing from m$
would be left in my datacenter.
Saying you are an expert Linux user is just a joke when you don't
understand the poor architectural choices that come with windows and why
it c
As per that theory 3CX should have been public by now !!
Mitul
On Dec 4, 2013 8:49 PM, "CDR" wrote:
> Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
> version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework in Windows,
> something simple to install, they could go public on
That's just disgusting If you want to run your phones on WindBlows
use lync Should be plenty point and click easy for you
On 12/04/2013 09:19 AM, CDR wrote:
Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework
Digium is 100% lost in the map. If they would come up with a Paid
version of Asterisk, one that would use the .NET framework in Windows,
something simple to install, they could go public on the product.
Linux has a very steep learning curve. A Windows application that
would do exactly the same woul
That doesn't make it a better plastform than Linux, but them ITC managers
just don't know there's something out there that is more stable, more
reliable, less costly, etc.
Yes but it doesn't have GENUINE ADVANTAGE :-)
___
--Bandwidth and Colocatio
On Mon, 2005-10-03 at 17:27 -0400, Paul wrote:
> As for X on the same box as *, it only seems to affect calls when I do
> something that uses enough cpu. I can be logged in with a gnome or kde
> desktop without causing problems. It's a P4 2.4 with 1 gb DDR 333.
For smaller volumes of calls (10-2
Christopher Dobbs wrote:
Matt wrote:
Extremely good point... I myself am a Linux person, but manage several
Windows machines (several meaning 25 or so). There is definately a
time and place for Windows.. I'm just not sure a real-time-VoIP server
is the time or place.Being semi-half serio
Matt wrote:
Extremely good point... I myself am a Linux person, but manage several
Windows machines (several meaning 25 or so). There is definately a
time and place for Windows.. I'm just not sure a real-time-VoIP server
is the time or place.Being semi-half serious about the GUI there
also
Quit aware of the telecomm industry; spent
21 years in buried in techie detail as an engineer and had
a ton of fun. Not sure the overall
programming community would agree with real-time vs productivity
assessment; lots of folks out there
writing production systems on Win32 systems that h
Good explanation Rich. Unix was built for the riggers of the Telecomm
industry. You won't find Windows running the PSTN. Unix and Linux are
used where their needed for real time processing and the highest
reliably. Windows is a productively OS that is easy to use for non
technical people. I
Any of the more current Win32 systems can be programmed to handle near
real-time events (eg, sip, rtp) just like linux, bsd, and other O/S's.
Obviously, Call Manager is one such system. It's really not an O/S
religious war/discussion, but rather a lack of knowledge (on any O/S
that a poster might
Wayne wrote:
Hiyall,
been following this for a while, just thought I would add a bit to the
debate, but doesn't the Cisco system (Call Manager?) run on an Windows
2000 based server - if it was that bad why would Cisco choose to run
it? Also 3Com use NT/2000 to run the H323 gateway. Admittedly
On Sun, October 2, 2005 12:07, Patrick said:
> On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:21 +0100, Wayne wrote:
>> Hiyall,
>> been following this for a while, just thought I would add a bit to the
>> debate, but doesn't the Cisco system (Call Manager?) run on an Windows
>> 2000 based server - if it was that bad why
Steve wrote:
> Cisco seem to be moving their CCM users to Linux. At least I have
heard
> of a few users going that way, after Cisco recommended it.
There have been unofficial statements that CCM would move to a
Unix-like OS, but that would be in the next major release, still
some time off. Over t
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:21 +0100, Wayne wrote:
>> Hiyall,
>> been following this for a while, just thought I would add a bit to
the
>> debate, but doesn't the Cisco system (Call Manager?) run on an
Windows
>> 2000 based server - if it was that bad why would Cisco choose to run
it?
> Politics a
er community find
increasingly difficult.
Dan
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Wayne
Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:22 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk on windows
Hiyall,
b
Cisco seem to be moving their CCM users to Linux. At least I have heard
of a few users going that way, after Cisco recommended it.
CCM doesn't usually handle anything near to hard real-time, so it is a
lot less demanding than something like Asterisk.
Regards,
Steve
Wayne wrote:
Hiyall,
be
On Sun, 2005-10-02 at 10:21 +0100, Wayne wrote:
> Hiyall,
> been following this for a while, just thought I would add a bit to the
> debate, but doesn't the Cisco system (Call Manager?) run on an Windows
> 2000 based server - if it was that bad why would Cisco choose to run it?
Politics and clue
Hiyall,
been following this for a while, just thought I would add a bit to the
debate, but doesn't the Cisco system (Call Manager?) run on an Windows
2000 based server - if it was that bad why would Cisco choose to run it?
Also 3Com use NT/2000 to run the H323 gateway. Admittedly the call
proc
Patrick wrote:
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 08:31 -0400, Julio Arruda wrote:
[snip]
One thing interesting, coming from data background, seeing the
requirements in carrier voice networks. Is a quite distinct ball-game.
Devices that require 'hot-software-upgrades', still not that often seen
in data. Ho
On Sat, 2005-10-01 at 08:31 -0400, Julio Arruda wrote:
[snip]
> One thing interesting, coming from data background, seeing the
> requirements in carrier voice networks. Is a quite distinct ball-game.
> Devices that require 'hot-software-upgrades', still not that often seen
> in data. How is this
Patrick wrote:
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 23:17 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
[snip]
An effective DOS attack on a $300,000 Alpha running NT I used to use was
"wiggle the mouse" :-) I never really understood how that brought a
multi-CPU machine to a standstill, but it did.
Reminds me of an Intern
On Wed, 2005-09-28 at 23:17 +0800, Steve Underwood wrote:
[snip]
> An effective DOS attack on a $300,000 Alpha running NT I used to use was
> "wiggle the mouse" :-) I never really understood how that brought a
> multi-CPU machine to a standstill, but it did.
Reminds me of an Internet Call Divers
PM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk on windows
I disagree - I ran exchange 5.5 on a digital alpha using windows nt. At
the time it was the most reliable NT system I had ever seen and it ran
faster than any i386 system. Personally I
>So how does that explain muslims blowing themselves up and taking as many
>non-believers with them as possible? I don't see any of them trying to
>convert anyone. Is this a bug in Linux?
Duuno if you're trying for subtle humor there, otherwise...
**whoosh**
The religious Zealot was catholic or more accurately speaking, a
Zehova's witness
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of canuck15
>
So how does that explain muslims blowing themselves up and taking as
many non-believers with them as possible?
]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Colin
Anderson
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:57 AM
To: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'
Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk on windows
Not to mention NT on Alpha and CHRP was a joke, the GUI was not native
code
> -Original Message-
> From: Colin Anderson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 8:41 AM
> To: 'Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk on windows
>
> [me shrugs]
>
riginal Message-
From: Tony Hoyle [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 9:59 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk on windows
Rich Adamson wrote:
> Both probably resulted from some untested/unexpected ac
> > > Why on earth would you want to run it on Windows? First off, your
> > > performance is going to go down because of the GUI... oh your call
> > > quality just went down the toilet? Yeah sorry the screen saver just
> > > kicked in. Having issues making calls? Oh sorry we had to reboot
>
Rich Adamson wrote:
Both probably resulted from some untested/unexpected activity the
developer never addressed for whatever reason.
Moving the mouse?? lol.
Actually I remember this problem on NT4.. the mouse driver used to drag
the system down completely.. it was a complete resource ho
> -Original Message-
> From: Rich Adamson [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 7:43 AM
> To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk on windows
>
>
> > Why on earth would yo
[me shrugs]
I read an interesting quote the other day, can't remember where:
"A religious zealot subconsiously realizes his position is fundamentally
irrational, so he tries to convert
other people to religion in order to validate that position"
:%s/religion/linux/g
Far as I'm concerned, right
> >>Personally, I could care less which O/S the stuff runs on as long as
> >>it runs reliably, and the sys admin understands how to manage whatever
> >>sytem he/she is responsible for.
> >>
> >
> >Extremely good point... I myself am a Linux person, but manage several
> >Windows machines (several me
> > Personally, I could care less which O/S the stuff runs on as long as
> > it runs reliably, and the sys admin understands how to manage whatever
> > sytem he/she is responsible for.
>
> Extremely good point... I myself am a Linux person, but manage several
> Windows machines (several meaning 2
Sounds like an IRQ conflict!
On 9/28/05, Steve Underwood <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Matt wrote:
>
> >>Personally, I could care less which O/S the stuff runs on as long as
> >>it runs reliably, and the sys admin understands how to manage whatever
> >>sytem he/she is responsible for.
> >>
> >>
> >
Matt wrote:
Personally, I could care less which O/S the stuff runs on as long as
it runs reliably, and the sys admin understands how to manage whatever
sytem he/she is responsible for.
Extremely good point... I myself am a Linux person, but manage several
Windows machines (several meani
the open source revolution.
Seshu Kanuri
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt
Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 11:00 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Asterisk on windows
>
> Personally, I could care less which O/S the stuff runs on as long as
> it runs reliably, and the sys admin understands how to manage whatever
> sytem he/she is responsible for.
>
>
Extremely good point... I myself am a Linux person, but manage several
Windows machines (several meaning 25 or so
> Why on earth would you want to run it on Windows? First off, your
> performance is going to go down because of the GUI... oh your call
> quality just went down the toilet? Yeah sorry the screen saver just
> kicked in. Having issues making calls? Oh sorry we had to reboot
> for a critical up
Matt wrote:
Why on earth would you want to run it on Windows? First off, your
performance is going to go down because of the GUI... oh your call
quality just went down the toilet? Yeah sorry the screen saver just
kicked in. Having issues making calls? Oh sorry we had to reboot
for a critical
Or even . http://www.asteriskwin32.com/
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update opti
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 14:14, Kanishka Somaratne wrote:
> why can't we compile the asterisk coading in windows, it's done in c++ so
> it should work in windows as well
oh, and did you try google? how about this:
http://www.digium.com/index.php?menu=astwind
it's a bit of a cheat though 'ca
Just press Ctrl-Alt-Del
Usual on windows ;)
Olivier
-Message d'origine-
De : [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] De la part de Matt
Envoyé : mercredi 28 septembre 2005 15:22
À : Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Objet : Re: [Asterisk-Users] Asteri
Why on earth would you want to run it on Windows? First off, your
performance is going to go down because of the GUI... oh your call
quality just went down the toilet? Yeah sorry the screen saver just
kicked in. Having issues making calls? Oh sorry we had to reboot
for a critical update. Yea
On Wednesday 28 September 2005 14:14, Kanishka Somaratne wrote:
> why can't we compile the asterisk coading in windows, it's done in c++ so
it's written in C... have you bothered to look at the source code?
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Eas
why can't we compile the asterisk coading in windows, it's done in c++ so it
should work in windows as well
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com --
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.co
61 matches
Mail list logo
