similar to: Moving from DSL to T1

Hi All, I am investigating the deployment of VoIP/* in Eastern European areas where there is no PSTN infrastructure. As you can understand DSL/Cable connections are a dream. The only option is satellite. Does anyone know of any satellite providers that have low enough/acceptable delays for VoIP? Thanks, Yiannis.

Hi all, Anyone has experience using * through 128 kbs (or bigger) satelite link? In particular I am interested to hear how many calls could be put through 128Kbs satelite link simultaneously? Ta SJ

I have an application that needs to vary the menu choices available based upon the availability of an external resource at a given time. What I have in mind is a system that can uplink a user to one of many different satellites. Due to the nature of orbital mechanics a satellite may be out of range at any given time. I only want to present a menu of available satellites. I can query an

Could those on the list who have used or tried to use VoIP over a satellite internet connection comment on how well it works or if it even works at all in a reliable way. What is the effect of latency on the VoIP path and how much is generally tolerable? routing via satellite adds about a quarter second of latency to the path. Is that too much? Eric

Dear List, Is there a color palette avaliable similar to what is used in satellite ocean color imagery? I.e. a gradient with blue on one end and red on the other, with yellow in the middle? I have tried topo.colors(n) but that comes out more yellow on the end. I am looking for something similar to what is found on the CoastWatch web page:

hi all. here in Lebanon,Beriut we are allowed only to use satellite for downlink only. uplink is made through a router connected to public land lines. The satellite card is a penta card. i want to distribute Internet connection to customers. such a connection i want to do on linux. but what hinders me is the configuration which i dont know how to do. so please , some one tell me how to

Today has been the day for satellite questions, apparently, so I'll proxy one out to the rest of the community... I asked this tangentially a month or two ago, but I'll put it in a more blunt way: If you have IAX2 trunking mode experience over satellite, please let us know your experiences with that protocol/transport combination. I've got several people asking about IAX2 and

Once upon a time, Warren Young <warren at etr-usa.com> said: > a. It?s transmitting from a fixed location in a time zone you probably aren?t in ? US Mountain ? being the least populous of the lower 48?s four time zones. You therefore have to configure time zone offset and DST rules, which means additional software if you want it to track changes to these things. There were 10 batches of

To be clear: I’m concerned about the amount of our infrastructure (as well as downstream infrastructure, this would be actually pretty painful for both of my downstreams) that the community would have break/need fixing as a part of that. So I want this to happen ONCE. I think it is well motivated now, but switching from ‘default’ to ‘main’ when that becomes the ‘standard’ one seems way less

I mean, we could change it twice? There are about a hundred scripts out there for doing it. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:40 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > Do we have any ability to reach out to github (at least?) to see what they > are going to do? I’d very much like to avoid being the odd-project-out > here. > > > > > > > >

I disagree with your timing concerns. Changing is still straightforward and I'd like to see this done within 1-2 weeks. Thanks. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 12:22 PM Chris Tetreault <ctetreau at quicinc.com> wrote: > +1 to waiting until git and/or github decide on a new name for the default > branch. I think there is a compelling reason to change the name of the > default

Sorry for the inline-comment format being weird, I haven't figured out yet how to do '>' stuff in outlook yet :/ Hopefully this is clear enough. -----Original Message----- From: mehdi.amini at apple.com [mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 24, 2016 10:55 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject: Re:

As I mentioned on another thread, we also use the term "slave" for the BuildBot builders. In the past, I was told this was due to being stuck on an old version of BuildBot. Fortunately, there is already work in progress to update BuildBot to a newer version. Since that's also going affect all the build machines, perhaps changing the name of the main branch should happen

That's a good point, we should definitely be respectful of the build bot owners time, that said I think it's the coordination that takes the time rather than the change :) On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:48 AM Keane, Erich via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > My understanding is the biggest concern about the name change is the > ‘cost’ associated with needing to

There's really no guarantee that things will shake out the same in near term between the projects. -eric On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 11:31 AM Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> wrote: > I’m a bit mixed on this. While yes, we should change this as soon as is > practical, it would be a shame to pick something sufficiently different > from the rest of the world, as that would

Greetings, A couple of weeks ago, there was here a discussion about streaming. Here is two things that I would like to add to the discussion: meta-streaming and control-streaming. (Althou I do not think my ideas are that new) * First metastreaming: If you look at DVB (Digital Video Broadcasting), one of nice features (apart from it being a European standard ;-)) is the existing of a meta-stream.

Alright, I guess it isn’t just my pain then, it makes it feel better ☺ I think that proposed feature would be really nice, since it would encourage people to write tests that have a //CHECK: some-thing-after-header first! From: Reid Kleckner [mailto:rnk at google.com] Sent: Thursday, March 30, 2017 11:15 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org Subject:

I've heard just about zero opposition to this, so I've put a code review together here: https://reviews.llvm.org/D47073 With the intent of either implementing this policy change, or encouraging further discussion/bikeshed. Thanks all! -Erich -----Original Message----- From: Brooks Davis [mailto:brooks at freebsd.org] Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2018 10:34 AM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane

I’d like us to move forward with something along the lines Erich proposed back in May, ideally early enough in the LLVM 8 release process that people testing the release will be able to provide feedback. Are there any remaining concerns? > On May 23, 2018, at 6:21 AM, Keane, Erich via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote: > > Hi all- > I just wanted to bump this again,

Ah, I see what you mean. I would have no problem with January 7th being pushed back a while if that helps out your transition. Would that be possible Mike? From: Stephen Hines <srhines at google.com> Sent: Monday, November 16, 2020 6:03 PM To: Keane, Erich <erich.keane at intel.com> Cc: Mehdi AMINI <joker.eph at gmail.com>; llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>; clang