[Asterisk-biz] Re: Best stable asterisk release for SOHO for 35 users

[Greg Boehnlein]

On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Paul wrote:

> On Tue, 1 Nov 2005, Greg Boehnlein wrote,
> 
> >There are two things that I cannot find a way to customize via the
> >xxxx_custom.conf files:
> 
> >1.  Inbound routing based on analog trunk:  If I want to route calls coming
> >in on zap/1 differently than zap/2 I have to modify extensions.conf
> >directly (fake AMP out into thinking DID is available).
> 
> >2.  Override extensions dial plan:  If I want to change the behavior of
> >calls to an extension, I have to edit extensions.conf (or
> >extensions_additional.conf) directly.  Because asterisk sorts extensions in
> >a context *before* it sorts included contexts, overrides in
> >extensions_custom.conf have no affect.
> 
> Greg,

Don't attribute these issues to me. These were not posted by me.

[Deleted]

> Now look at it from another side.  New users.  When did you ever see the
> wealth of new users, new pushes and new ideas flowing into Asterisk?
> 
> Yes, it is a burden on the wiki's --- but less people fail to get their
> first system up with A at H which breeds new life into the entire system. It
> really can be used in a business environment.  What stops it???

Concerns about adding more and more software, the security implications of 
such and the long term stability of a solution like that.

Look at AstLinux. It's 26 megs, runs from flash, and can run on something 
as small as a Gumstix. As a base OS for building a PBX, everything you 
could possibly need is available for you.

Now.. would you like to argue the fact that more packages == more security 
holes? Think of it this way: PBXware and Astlinux can coexist in about 45 
megabytes of storage, running out of a Compact Flash and can be loaded in 
less than 5 minutes by just about anyone. It is a purpose designed system 
that is intentionally tight on footprint but doesn't sacrafice features. 
It's rock solid, well tested and you get support from commercial entities.

As opposed to Asterisk @ Home, which requires that you install a full 
Centos install at (350+ megs) PLUS a development environment. I don't know 
about you, but I tend not to leave GCC and development libraries on 
production systems for my customers. Being that Asterisk has to be 
re-built on every platform that it is installed on would be cause for 
concern for me.
 
> Please enlighten me where the combination of Cent OS 3.5, AMP, FOP,
> Asterisk, Sugar and all required modules to have a full system working, slow
> down Asterisk or cause a failure in a business environment.

Where those features aren't required (90% of the installs I do) they are 
just wasted space and a ton of additional components that have to be 
managed for security and updates over the long-haul.

> The only problem is the new beta.  They based their new 2.0 beta on Cent 4
> and too many changes / upgrades were introduced at once (mysql, phpmyadmin)
> as we all have done in the past.

Look.. I'm all in support of what the Asterisk At Home project is doing, 
and I encourage it. I just have a problem with people reccomending it to 
commercial users. Asterisk At Home is not something that I would even 
dream of deploying in a commercial environment (yet.. that may change as 
it matures). Just because you CAN do something it doesn't make it the 
right decision.

-- 
    Vice President of N2Net, a New Age Consulting Service, Inc. Company
         http://www.n2net.net Where everything clicks into place!
                             KP-216-121-ST