why can't we compile the asterisk coading in windows, it's done in c++ so it should work in windows as well
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++ soit's written in C... have you bothered to look at the source code?
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. Yeah I know audio isn't working right, the swap file is a little large right now, we need to reboot. Are you on crack?!?! Asterisk runs well on Linux because of the lack of a GUI... sleek simple interface (text) to it. Linux is free, windows adds a license cost. Since you shouldn't be running any other applications on the server anyway, why not just install Linux? Trying to run it on windows seems like a bad idea to me. On 9/28/05, Kanishka Somaratne <kani@technoportal.biz> wrote:> 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.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users >
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 welloh, and did you try google? how about this: http://www.digium.com/index.php?menu=astwind it's a bit of a cheat though 'cause its using coLinux> > _______________________________________________ > --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 options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Or even ......... http://www.asteriskwin32.com/
Could not agree more with Matt. I have been a linux geek for a long time and I would think twice before calling Windows a crap o/s as linux feels crappier when it comes to usability, administration and the pain in making it work the first time, with due respect to all those who are contributing to the open source revolution. Seshu Kanuri -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] 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). 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. You install X on your Asterisk server and things will not be happy either. -------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
[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 tool for the right job. DHCP? Linux. Groupware? Windows. Firewall? BSD. Graphics? Mac. Low cost, ultra flexible kick ass telephony? Asterisk / Linux.>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.An effective DOS attack on a Linux box: su root cd / rm -rf * Every platform has a weakness.
I have made a simple click to dial using the manager API. What do you need? On 9/28/05, Ezequiel A. Sculli <esculli@codes.com.ar> wrote:> > Hi group: > I would like contact somebody who has experiences connecting an > Aterisk-PBX with Manager API. Thanks. Ezequiel > > > > _______________________________________________ > --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com <http://Easynews.com>-- > > Asterisk-Users mailing list > Asterisk-Users@lists.digium.com > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users > To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit: > http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users >-- "Su nombre es GNU/Linux, no solamente Linux, mas info en http://www.gnu.org" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: http://lists.digium.com/pipermail/asterisk-users/attachments/20050928/a7438ace/attachment.htm
Not to mention NT on Alpha and CHRP was a joke, the GUI was not native code and proper drivers were non existient. At the time MS was hedging their bets because it looked like CHRP / Alpha might be going somewhere. I had for a while a Motorola CHRP machine with Daytona on it and it was utter crap but it was a "let's throw it up there and see what sticks" situation. I also got to eval a "flippy" board with a P-90 AND a 603, reboot and it would ask you which proc you wanted to use. Was it Orange Micro that had that?? wow 10 years ago seems like a lifetime. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Hoyle [mailto:tmh@nodomain.org] 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 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 hog. Tony _______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
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 wish MS would have continued development on it. -Justin -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] 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 and proper drivers were non existient. At the time MS was hedging their bets because it looked like CHRP / Alpha might be going somewhere. I had for a while a Motorola CHRP machine with Daytona on it and it was utter crap but it was a "let's throw it up there and see what sticks" situation. I also got to eval a "flippy" board with a P-90 AND a 603, reboot and it would ask you which proc you wanted to use. Was it Orange Micro that had that?? wow 10 years ago seems like a lifetime. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Hoyle [mailto:tmh@nodomain.org] 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 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 hog. Tony _______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users _______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
The religious Zealot was catholic or more accurately speaking, a Zehova's witness -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of canuck15>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? I'm not sure if this is a bit off topic but I apologize if it is. ;) _______________________________________________ --Bandwidth and Colocation sponsored by Easynews.com -- -------------------------------------------------------- NOTICE: If received in error, please destroy and notify sender. Sender does not waive confidentiality or privilege, and use is prohibited.
>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**
It ran good because Exchange 5.5 was ported to Alpha natively. Anything else that had to thunk to the emulation layer blew dead goats, as emulation tends to do. Alpha was great, don't get me wrong, but industry politics (Intel posturing, DEC aquisition by Compaq) dictated that Microsoft had to half-ass the job. Personally, I was hoping that the CHRP platform would take hold. Funny how things come in a circle what with Apple abandoning PowerPC and OSX loading on Dells. -----Original Message----- From: Justin Selleck [mailto:jselleck@smoothfusion.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2005 12:24 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 wish MS would have continued development on it. -Justin -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] 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 and proper drivers were non existient. At the time MS was hedging their bets because it looked like CHRP / Alpha might be going somewhere. I had for a while a Motorola CHRP machine with Daytona on it and it was utter crap but it was a "let's throw it up there and see what sticks" situation. I also got to eval a "flippy" board with a P-90 AND a 603, reboot and it would ask you which proc you wanted to use. Was it Orange Micro that had that?? wow 10 years ago seems like a lifetime. -----Original Message----- From: Tony Hoyle [mailto:tmh@nodomain.org] 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 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 hog. Tony _______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users _______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users _______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Cisco Call Manager does indeed run on Windows 2000. There are positive and negative facets with this arrangement. Postive: - Easier for your average IT engineer to install - Easier for the same person to maintain - Using MS SQL Server allows for replication and a workable clustering strategty out of the box - Only supported on certified hardware Negative: - The OS cannot be patched with MS fixes * The issue is support from Cisco, so only MS patches that Cisco certifies and publishes can be applied. - MS SQL Server 2000 is a memory pig - Massive and cryptic log files, debugging odd behavior can be amazing difficult - Only supported on certified hardware Now with these 'facts' in mind, the latest release is extremely stable if you have enough memory to keep SQL Server happy. The management interface is fairly well designed, and allows for granular access, so a companies help desk staff can be trained on performing adds/moves/changes without putting the core dialplan or infrastructure in their hands Cisco's SCCP protocol uses RTP, and allows media re-invites, but stays in the signalling path. So the system does not deal directly with codecs or transcoding, so scalability is releatively good. And should the server crash in the middle of calls, the calls are not interrupted. New calls cannot start, but disconnects do not happen. I listed the certified hardware requirement as both a postive and negative. It does limit choices, but with Cisco's process of validating both the OS and hardware, the is a very limited exposure that a bad driver can be introduced to reduce stability. Even though it is a workable system, Cisco has indicated that a future release MAY be appliance like running on a 'Unix-like' OS. So it is possible to run a telephony system on Windows, and get reasonable performance. It can be a challenge, but no more or less so than on a Unix-like system. It is even likely that if Cisco moved the base OS to 2003 Server, stability would improve. Now after all of that, I would want people to think I am suggesting porting * to Windows would be as successful. It works for Cisco largely because they can afford to certify and validate the platform, something a volunteer community find increasingly difficult. Dan -----Original Message----- From: asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com [mailto:asterisk-users-bounces@lists.digium.com] 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, 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 processor runs on VXWorks but to cross the boundary of proprietary 3com and rest of world - they jump onto windows. Curiously Wayne. ps I don't know a great deal about the cisco system - its more hearsay so please jump in on :) Patrick wrote:>Reminds me of an Internet Call Diversion pilot WorldCom did back in2000>where Alcatel & some M$ drones brought in 2 very big Alpha servers >running NT. These boxes needed to be rebooted multiple times. They were >surprised WCOM felt having to reboot these boxes all the time was >unacceptable in an environment requiring 5nines availability. Never >laughed so hard when I saw the incredulous faces of the M$ drones. We >brought in a Stratus based solution and won the project. >_______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
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 tothe>> debate, but doesn't the Cisco system (Call Manager?) run on anWindows>> 2000 based server - if it was that bad why would Cisco choose to runit?> Politics and cluelessness. There are rumours that Cisco's next CCMwill> run Linux. Cisco also used Win2000 on their BBSM product. An amazing > piece of crap according to those who had to install it and maintainit.> You had to reboot the thing over and over. Sounds familiar?Cisco actually aqcuired the product that was to become CCM from Selsius. It was already written for and running on Windwows. Pretty standard business fare. Buy a product line, rebrand it, make money, maybe make it better over time. Even with what I think most of us recognize the technical issues, it has been a lucrative product for Cisco>> Also 3Com use NT/2000 to run the H323 gateway. Admittedly the call >> processor runs on VXWorks but to cross the boundary of proprietary3com>> and rest of world - they jump onto windows.> VWWorks is as stable as it gets compared to M$. At least they had the > brains to put the important part on a Unix like OS. About the M$ part, > well, it's silly decisions like that that contribute to 3Com's fading > away.> Regards, > PatrickDan _______________________________________________ --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 options visit: http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
Steve wrote:> Cisco seem to be moving their CCM users to Linux. At least I haveheard> 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 the last few years Cisco has taken to making major announcements at the Cisco IPTel User Group meeting. This years is in Las Vegas during the first week of December, so this rumor may soon gain official validation. I know I would not mind hearing it....> CCM doesn't usually handle anything near to hard real-time, so it is a> lot less demanding than something like Asterisk.I started to respond to this having first read real-time as realtime, it took a moment to adjust my thinking. Unless a business chooses to implement the limited IVR solution on one of their CCM servers, CCM does not handle media streams. So the software does not need to deal with high priority real-time traffic> Regards, > SteveDan