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

[Steven Critchfield]

On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 18:23 +0200, Tom Ivar Helbekkmo wrote:
> 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.  :-)

As the RPMs are being made and the debs as well, maybe we shouldn't
worry about ftp or cvs to a section for more advanced users who are
interested in actually compiling.

I knew someone else had a better thought about this than I did. 

-- 
Steven Critchfield <critch at basesys.com>