Paul, It sounds like you've done a fair amount of dev work with both projects. I respect your viewpoint and your experience. Perhaps it's best if we agree to disagree. In any case, I refer back to the mantra of the FreeSWITCH developers: "Use what works for your situation." If you've got something that is working for you then by all means keep using it!
In fact, if you've been doing telephony development with open source tools you may wish to come to ClueCon (www.cluecon.com) to rub elbows with fellow OSS telephony devs. It's a great opportunity to talk tech with important people in the OSS telephony arena. Why I even had the pleasure of having dinner with the man who wrote OpenSIPS! (Bogdan, hope we can talk tech some more at ClueCon 2011. :) -MC On Thu, Dec 9, 2010 at 7:26 AM, paul.gor...@gmail.com <paul.gor...@gmail.com > wrote: > I just want to reply to mr Collins with FS: your post looks very much like > advertisement, and I have seen that "fs is so much better than *" all over > internet from people connected to fs. That is unethical to say the least. > In fact we have exprerienced fs crashes with core dump at least once in 6 > months and we process just under 40K calls/month. > As to "nat tools" which you mentioned they just do not work. In fact > usually * box works much better for natted users. > As to xml curl interface - we do use it, and it's a pathetic way to feed a > dialplan to a switch, since it's inefficient resource wise, but there was no > other way available for real time solution where's * supports real time db > out of the box. > Trust me we do have development experience with both * socket interface and > fs one, and in my opinion * solution is far better and has far less bugs. > >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@lists.opensips.org http://lists.opensips.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/users
