[Asterisk-Users] PBX Console

[Mark Spencer]

Might also think about VNC for doing the console.

Mark

On Wed, 23 Apr 2003, steve wrote:

> 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.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>