[Asterisk-Users] GUI based.. or ??

[Dean Collins]

Abhishek,
 
In reverse order
3/ yes it is freeware, though some of the termination boards are
available for sale from www.digium.com 

2/ yes you can interface to Cisco handsets running SIP.

1/ Does it have a gui interface - the short answer is no.
The longer answer is depending on what you mean, if you mean programming
- then no though a number of people have developed sql interfaces.
If you mean softphones then yes there are a number of software based
phones such as x-lite.

I hope this answers some of your questions, keep looking and asking this
is a good product for you to learn on and to research further.

Cheers,
Dean
Sydney, Australia

 
-----Original Message-----
From: asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com
[mailto:asterisk-users-admin at lists.digium.com] On Behalf Of Abhishek
Katta
Sent: Tuesday, 2 March 1999 3:17 AM
To: asterisk-users at lists.digium.com
Subject: [Asterisk-Users] GUI based.. or ??

Hi,
I am Abhishek from India.
I am have studying Cisco VOIP since a couple of months.Searching for
Soft
PBX somenthing like (Cisco Callmanager) i came accros this Asterisk.
I have to provide a a solution to a clinet where he wants a connectivity
between his 3 offices across the WAN with a very limited amount of
budget.Since i am not aware abt this product  much, but was able to
foind
out the features of the product and was satisfied also, So i just wanted
to
know from u ppl (since u ppl are expert in this) that :
1.)does this product has got a GUI interface .??
2.)Can we integrate Cisco or any other H/w with this.?
3.)it looks like freeware..isnt it.?

Please do let me the details abt the same..

I ll be really greatful

Thanking You,

Regards

Abhishek Katta

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Rich Adamson" <radamson at routers.com>
To: <asterisk-users at lists.digium.com>
Sent: Sunday, July 18, 2004 8:45 PM
Subject: Re: [Asterisk-Users] Echo problem update - POSSIBLE SOLUTION


> > So are saying that T2240 will gurantee no echo issues? Did you get
any
> > echo issues with a different PC with the same cards and Pstn lines?
> <snip>
> >     >>>No echo on eMachine T2240 2.2ghz Celery, 360m RAM, with
either
tdm04b
> >     >>>or x100p running any Head cvs after June 23rd (totally stock
install).
> >     >>>
> >     >>>Wouldn't necessarily recommend this box for any commercial
production
> >     >>>use, but...
> >     >>>
> >     >>>What's common and not so common between these _very_ diverse
boxes?
>
> Nope. the intent of that post was only to suggest that echo resolution
> varies by system, and has nothing to do with how fancy/speedy of a
> Compaq/Dell/HP/IBM/<insert-your-favorite-box-here> you might be
> considering or have available, or how much you spent for it. The
> T2240 with tdm-x100p cards in "one US case" does not have echo after
> the echotraining=800 implementation. Don't read anything more into it
> then just that. (The echotraining=800 was enough of a change for that
> exact system implementation to function well. The next one may not.)
>
> Some strong arguments have been made off-list the existing echo
> cancellation function is highly dependent upon interrupt latency,
> motherboard chipset in use, PCI controller, and/or other system-level
> items that might even include driver inefficiencies of the NIC card.
> Its way to early to pin the issue any closer, and might even involve
> more then one item. (Gary Mart is focusing on this and I'm sure he
> would appreciate any technical/programming help he can get. Now I
> wish I wouldn't have let those skills go years ago.)
>
> Swapping motherboards can impact echo but doing so does not address
> the root cause, only the symptoms. It would be nice to know XXX board
> works and YYY board does not, but the professional approach should
> focus on the underlying issue(s) and correcting/compensating for
those,
> if possible. It could be something as simple as a linux installation
> default (eg, assuming 33mhz buss, choice of drivers), or as complex
> as rewriting how the cancellation algorithm functions in general.
>
> It "is" known that a lot of implementations don't have echo, and
> apparently those boxes are using internal system resources that fall
> within the tolerances of the existing cancellation routines AND
> those boxes have been correctly interfaced to their pstn. Why
> others don't needs to be identified, and unfortunately, is not a
> simple task.
>
> In the past eight months we've all listened to suggestions that
> include killing the system's GUI interface, don't share interrupts,
> reverse tip & ring, etc, etc. However, it now _appears_ those were
> probably addressing the symptom and not the root cause.
>
> It's still most appropriate to ensure the pstn interfacing is
> implemented correctly including source of T1 sync, impedance matching,
> adjust gain parameters to reasonable levels, use of proper interface
> cards for your country's pstn standards, etc.
>
> Rich
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Asterisk-Users mailing list
> Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
> http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
> To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
>    http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
>

_______________________________________________
Asterisk-Users mailing list
Asterisk-Users at lists.digium.com
http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users
To UNSUBSCRIBE or update options visit:
   http://lists.digium.com/mailman/listinfo/asterisk-users