On 9/17/07, Dan Austin <Dan_Austin at phoenix.com>
wrote:>
> Lacy's response in the thread 'Why does
> everyone seem to dislike *now?', has a small
> bit that caught my eye.
>
> Chan_Skinny made a lot of progress between 1.2 and
> 1.4, and even more in the later 1.4.X releases.
>
> I am curious as to which features/functions that
> chan_skinny might be lacking compared to chan_sccp.
> We (the community) now have a small, but active,
> group of volunteers working on the chan_skinny code.
In the next week or so, I'll try to take a look at chan_skinny again before
making any comparisons. It would be great if chan_skinny worked as well as
chan_sccp.
I'm not interested in re-igniting the flame-wars of> the past about these channel drivers, but I would like
> to know what else needs to be addressed in chan_skinny
> before it users of chan_sccp would consider using it.
>
> Thanks,
> Dan
>
> _______________________________________________
>
> Sign up now for AstriCon 2007! September 25-28th.
> http://www.astricon.net/
>
> --Bandwidth and Colocation Provided by http://www.api-digital.com--
>
> asterisk-users mailing list
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>
--
Lacy Moore
Somewhere I wish I wasn't
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20070918/25317e32/attachment.htm