Hahahahaha
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users-
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Matt Riddell (NZ)
|Sent: Sunday, January 07, 2007 3:13 PM
|To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
Eric "ManxPower" Wieling wrote:
> Anton Krall wrote:
>> This is exactly one of the things that Steve and I discussed a bit ago...
>> when did asterisk turn from an open source project with very good
>> developers
>> into a business that only focuses in
On 6 Jan 2007, at 19:37, Anton Krall wrote:
Anyway, we are drifting from the initial point which was to hope
and support
further development of R2MFC on the asterisk community so I propose
a bounty
to get Steve (sheesh, that's sounded like a hit bounty :)) I meant,
a bounty
to convince S
On 1/6/07, Anton Krall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Anyway, we are drifting from the initial point which was to hope and support
further development of R2MFC on the asterisk community
Yeah, you are right :)
so I propose a bounty
to get Steve (sheesh, that's sounded like a hit bounty :)) I meant,
k Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4
|
|On 1/5/07, Anton Krall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> I think you are misunderstanding several points here Moises.
|May be
|
|> I do give Digium a break like you said, that's why you h
k Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4
|
|On 1/5/07, Anton Krall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> I think you are misunderstanding several points here Moises.
|May be
|
|> I do give Digium a break like you said, that's why you have
On 1/5/07, Anton Krall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think you are misunderstanding several points here Moises.
May be
I do give Digium a break like you said, that's why you have options
I dont understand this. How is related that you give Digium a break,
with the fact
that I have the option o
- Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4 (was: OnHook Call
Announcement...)
Hi All,as good?
Steve Underwood will not work more with channel Unicall for the Asterisk?
It will be discontinued?
Best Regards
Josué
2007/1/4, Moises Silva <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
1.2, Zap
Anton Krall wrote:
after all, like you said, it is open
source..
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users-
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moises Silva
|At the end, is open source/freesoftware, if you dont like it, nobody
|is stopping you from change it.
O
lease come back! :)
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users-
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moises Silva
|Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 9:41 AM
|To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4
|
|On 1/5/07, Anto
On 1/5/07, Anton Krall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
when did asterisk turn from an open source project with very good developers
nto a business that only focuses in $$$?
They are not mutually exclusive.
That's why openpbx was born I guess
I dont think so. I think is more because of technica
] On Behalf Of Josué Conti
Sent: Friday, January 05, 2007 3:33 AM
To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4 (was: OnHook Call
Announcement...)
Hi All,as good?
Steve Underwood will not work more with channel Unicall for the Asterisk
: Thursday, January 04, 2007 10:14 PM
|To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4
|
|Anton Krall wrote:
|
|>This is exactly one of the things that Steve and I discussed a bit ago...
|>when did asterisk turn from an open source p
risk-users-
> > |[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moises Silva
> > |Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:22 PM
> > |To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> > |Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4 (was: OnHook Call
> > Announcement...)
>
Anton Krall wrote:
This is exactly one of the things that Steve and I discussed a bit ago...
when did asterisk turn from an open source project with very good developers
into a business that only focuses in $$$?
I imagine that happened around the time they sold their soul to the
venture capita
Anton Krall wrote:
This is exactly one of the things that Steve and I discussed a bit ago...
when did asterisk turn from an open source project with very good developers
into a business that only focuses in $$$?
Well, I think that there can be no doubt that there still are some very
good d
48 PM
|To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4
|
|Barzilai Spinak wrote:
|
|> 2) Why is it that Digium never gave a damn about E1/MFC/R2...
|
|
|My guess would be because they don't have any E1/MFC/R2 hardware
|produ
> 2) Why is it that Digium never gave a damn about E1/MFC/R2...
Hu? then I must have been hallucinating the last 2 years working E1
with Digiums hardware?
My guess would be because they don't have any E1/MFC/R2 hardware
products to market.
Lee.
___
Barzilai Spinak wrote:
2) Why is it that Digium never gave a damn about E1/MFC/R2...
My guess would be because they don't have any E1/MFC/R2 hardware
products to market.
Lee.
___
--Bandwidth and Colocation provided by Easynews.com --
asterisk-us
On 1/4/07, Barzilai Spinak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
libmfcr2 depends on spandsp (DSP processing), and libunicall (call
management).
The part that *actually* interfaces with Asterisk is the "chan_unicall".
Right, Unicall aims to be abstract from the telephony engine and
signaling, so actually y
Last week I spent a couple of nights understanding and modifying libmfcr2.
After a few hours, the almost comment-free code starts to make sense
(although I would have done many things differently).
As far as I understand it, most (affected/complaining) people are mostly
interested in the MFC/R2
ailto:asterisk-users-
> |[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moises Silva
> |Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:22 PM
> |To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
> |Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4 (was: OnHook Call
> Announcement...)
> |
> |On 1/3/07,
On Thu, 2007-01-04 at 17:20 -0500, Erick Perez wrote:
> Question:
> So for people using E1 with R2 or PRI as signaling, what are my
> options in asterisk 1.4 and 1.2?
>
>
Basically, you can use R2 in any 1.2.X release. At this moment there
is no way to use R2 with Asterisk 1.4 unless you
g to be you hopefuly.
Let me know how it goes.
|-Original Message-
|From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:asterisk-users-
|[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Moises Silva
|Sent: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:22 PM
|To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users]
: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 5:22 PM
|To: Asterisk Users Mailing List - Non-Commercial Discussion
|Subject: Re: [asterisk-users] no unicall on 1.4 (was: OnHook Call
Announcement...)
|
|On 1/3/07, Anton Krall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
|> And probably wont be as Steve Underwood explained t
On 1/3/07, Anton Krall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
And probably wont be as Steve Underwood explained to me that he is now
supporting openpbx and has stopped support for unicall on asterisk 1.4
Can anybody at digium confirm? Is unicall going to be left out of 1.4?
This has nothing to do with Di
26 matches
Mail list logo
