[Asterisk-Users] PBX Console

[steve]

On Wednesday 23 April 2003 18:57, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 17:40, steve wrote:
> > On Wednesday 23 April 2003 16:29, Steven Critchfield wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2003-04-23 at 14:28, steve wrote:
> >
> > typical PBX, and frankly Auto Attendant is in the minority use.
>
> This must be a difference in who we talk to. I rarely if ever get
> to talk to a human unless I'm at an endpoint of a call. Of course
> this says nothing about the fact that there is a great number of
> users using asterisk currently and are happy with it. And as I
> said before, this doesn't mean we couldn't use what you propose.

I don't mind AA myself but I've run into many who don't like it. Of 
the sales I've seen many outfits try to compete for their customers 
by keeping the personal touch and dropping AA. I may very well be a 
bit out of touch with mainstream. Either way an easy to use console 
is high on my wishlist.

> > > > There's the beginnig of GUI version but it's going to eat
> > > > resources for running X which can become less than
> > > > desirable, besides it's not very competitive having to use
> > > > a mouse to handle calls. Too slow.
> > >
> > > This gui version, are you refering to gastman? if so, it is
> > > able to be run remotely. I run it on a free monitor here so I
> > > can track system usage. I rarely use it for call routing.
> >
> > Yes, but in order to forward X to another machine X has to run
> > on the server, thus slowing down the server. Using 729 will eat
> > enough horsepower by itself.
>
> BZZT. wrong. Try this again. X does not need to be running on a
> machine to serve an X app. Secondly gastman, the current closest
> thing to what you propose, uses a tcp/ip communications channel
> to tell asterisk what to do and keep up to date as to what is
> going on. There is a windows native version of this software,
> more proof of no need for X on the server.

Hmm. I'm talking about a remote X session. Or rather now, was. I did 
not know it could be done any other way. Cool! Now if we can have 
it look like a console and allow easy keyboard control too I'd be 
all set. : )


> > > > The other status screen would be a voice mail screen where
> > > > you can A) see the status of voicemail. Lines in use etc.
> > > > B) change the name and features associated with voice mail.
> > >
> > > Voicemail doesn't use lines so part A is not exactly needed.
> > > As for B, why would a receptionist do this when it is
> > > available to each user via the phone line.
> >
> > Because you cannot configure all the options via a phone. I
> > need to be able to replace standard PBXs with voice mail. I
> > don't expect to see an operator configuring voice mail, but it
> > needs to be configured by some type of admin. In a corporate
> > setting there are control you are not willing to give to the
> > user like adding and removing boxes, reconfiguring how calls
> > are to be routed for someone, typical maintenance stuff. I.e.
> > not talking about messages and passwords.
>
> Currently the asterisk config files, to which voicemailbox
> adds/deletes require a person edit the files. There have been
> others mention wanting to build gui config tools for asterisk.
> Check the archive and maybe see if you can help them out.

-- 

Steve Szmidt
___________________________________________________________
HTML in e-mail is not safe. It let's spammers know to spam you more,
and sets you up for online attack through IE 4.x and above.
Using HTML in e-mail only promotes it as safe to the uninitiated.