[Asterisk-doc] Re: I'm thinking that FTP makes more sense for Volume One than CVS does

[Tom Ivar Helbekkmo]

jim at digitalchemy.ca writes:

> FTP is the delivery mechanism that most people will expect to use.
> Administrators all know FTP; I would suspect that CVS is a far less common
> skill amongst Linux admins (you might argue that a good Linux admin should 
> know CVS, but I'm not so concerned about what skills people _should_ have, 
> what matters is what skills people _do_ have).

In fact, I'd guess most Linux admins these days prefer prepackaged
binaries in formats like rpm, and get uncomfortable if you ask them to
compile something.  What's more, there's nothing wrong with that.  The
UNIX world is changing, in the direction of systems that can be set
up, configured, and maintained, without even installing a compiler on
them.  People who don't want to learn about building and installing
software from source code shouldn't be forced to.  They can be good
sysadmins without doing that.  At least I try hard to think so.  ;-)

In addition to the CVS 1-0 stable branch, tar-ed up source code kits
should be made available of 1.0.0, 1.0.1, &c, and, as far as possible,
so should prepackaged binaries for the most common platforms.  Such
kits, along with documents in pdf that explain how to install and
configure this baby, will do wonders for the adoption of Asterisk out
there in the real world, where sysadmins need to be result-oriented.

Meanwhile, us old farts can happily stick to using software that we
periodically update from CVS, build, install -- and debug.  :-)

-tih
-- 
Tom Ivar Helbekkmo, Senior System Administrator, EUnet Norway Hosting
www.eunet.no  T +47-22092958 M +47-93013940 F +47-22092901 FWD 484145