[asterisk-doc] I am new to asterisk..Please help me..

[Tilghman Lesher]

On Wednesday 12 July 2006 11:53, Jim Van Meggelen wrote:
> On July 12, 2006, Ira wrote:
> > At 07:47 AM 7/12/2006, you wrote:
> > > > >Asterisk The Future Of Telephony is perfect step by step
> > > > > novice users guide:
> > > > >http://www.asteriskdocs.org/modules/tinycontent/index.php?id=11
> > > >
> > > > I'd tend to suggest it's far from perfect, but having a
> > > > book to hold when starting out is a good thing.
> > >
> > >So how would you improve it?
>
> We discussed writing an authoritative bible of all things Asterisk,
> and realized that that would be a mighty tome indeed. Also, what we
> found was most needed was an introduction. Enough to get started.
> From that base (as you have discovered) there was enough information
> in the community to go to the next step.

I think the biggest criticism that I can level is that it was very clear
from the writing that chapters were written at different times in the
development process, so while one chapter was a good description
about how things worked in 1.0, a different chapter would have new
and interesting things in 1.2.  The book reads as if you finished each
chapter as a work unto itself, and when each was done, you never went
back to revise it.  Hence, the book has a feel of a collection of
articles about Asterisk, rather than a unified work.

> We are working on more with O'Reilly, and there is other stuff in the
> works as well. One of the challenges of writing for Asterisk is that
> it changes so fast it is hard to keep up with it. It was tough enough
> writing our book to handle Asterisk 1.2, since many of the features
> of 1.2 did not exist when we started writing.

I appreciate the difficulty of writing such a book; however, I think it
lacked a final review by an editor with an eye for unifying the
material.  That's the most substantive criticism that I have of the
book.  However, whatever its flaws, it is still superior to have a book
that I can feel comfortable pointing others towards than not having one.

-- 
Tilghman