[asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install

[Tom Rymes]

On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Stephen Bosch wrote:

> Lee Jenkins wrote:
>> Stefano Corsi wrote:

[snip]

>> The nice things about GUI's in my opinion is that routine chores  
>> such as
>> setting up extensions, dialing extensions, hunt groups, etc. are less
>> likely to contain scripting bugs or typos.  The downside from what I
>> gather with many GUI's is that the friendly abstraction that  
>> insulates
>> you from the nuts and bolts of scripting and configuration also  
>> makes it
>> difficult to customize the dialplan in some cases.
>
> It also makes troubleshooting problems a handful-and-a-half. And  
> woe is
> you if you need kernel customizations to make your hardware work.

Not to start a flame-war, but I completely disagree. Troubleshooting  
a GUI is much easier, given that you don't have to scout for typos,  
transposed numbers, etc throughout the dialplan. With the GUI, you  
have to double check the information that you input into the GUI, but  
that's it. As for hardware, it should be no more difficult to get  
Trixbox to play nicely with hardware than any other Asterisk install.  
You may have to patch and/or recompile zaptel, asterisk, etc, but  
that's no different than what you would have to do with a non-Trixbox  
install. (and you really shouldn't have to in almost all cases)

> I would say this -- if all you're ever going to use is VOIP trunks, by
> all means use Trixbox. It's great for that. But if you're using any  
> kind
> of PSTN hardware (TDM cards, Sangoma) just stick with straight  
> Asterisk.

Are you kidding? Sangoma actually has a version of Trixbox on their  
site that comes bundled with their drivers already installed (see  
http://wiki.sangoma.com/Trixbox-1xx ). All you have to do is  
configure the card(s) in the same way as you would with any Asterisk  
install.

> I've just had my second go at Trixbox (version 2.0 now) and after
> wasting a bunch of time with hardware problems, I'm going to  
> replace it
> with a generic install.

I would suggest (hopefully politely) that you not blame your lack of  
experience and ability on Trixbox. If you can get the Sangoma  
wanrouter software downloaded and compiled, along with Zaptel,  
Asterisk, libpri, etc, then you can certainly do the same on Trixbox,  
because all you have to do is "yum search wanpipe"  and then "yum  
install" the modules and utils packages. Once installed, follow the  
instructions on Sangoma's website to configure the card. If all else  
fails, you can easily call for support from Sangoma. Even if you  
choose not to use yum, it's just as easy to get a Sangoma board  
working under Trixbox as it is for any other Asterisk install.

> Here's another reason to seriously consider generic: the userbase is
> larger, AND they're more likely to know what they're talking about  
> when
> a problem does arise. Trixbox attracts a lot of amateurs who are
> themselves new to IP telephony; that's why they choose it.

Valid point, but FreePBX (the program Trixbox uses for GUI Asteirsk  
config) also has a large userbase, and a number of Trixbox problems  
are not Trixbox specific, and can be addressed by the Asterisk  
community as a whole.

>> Of course, you should take this with a grain of salt since I tried  
>> A at H
>> (now TrixBox) for a total of 2 weeks before gutting it.
>
> There is a good reason people don't stick with it for long.

Many people do not stick with Trixbox for long, and many others do.  
The crux of the issue is this: FreePBX/Trixbox, and most other GUIs  
will make it easier to get your system up and running, and they make  
it easier to maintain it, make changes, etc. (I am defining "easier"  
as "requiring less technical familiarity with the underpinnings of  
exactly what is going on" as well as "less intimidating and error  
prone since no manual editing of configuration files is required.")  
On the other hand, emacs/vi/pico/whatevereditoryouprefer and the text  
config files without a GUI are more difficult, but offer greater  
flexibility.

Soooo.... it comes down to "Which is more important to you? Ease of  
use for you and/or your clients (who may want to control adds/moves,  
etc.) or greater flexibility and control?" Once you answer that  
question, you can answer the question "Which is better for me?" The  
correct answer to that question may very well be different for you  
than it is for me. (and it may be different for you six months from  
now than it is today.)

Tom