[asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install

[Stephen Bosch]

Tom Rymes wrote:
> On Feb 12, 2007, at 7:13 PM, Stephen Bosch wrote:
> 
>> Lee Jenkins wrote:
>>> Stefano Corsi wrote:
> 
>>> 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 come from the practice of compiling everything from sources because
binary distributions -- be they of Asterisk or any other Linux or Linux
application -- are unreliable. Nobody knows what hardware you're running
but you; compiling from sources gives you a better chance of ending up
with a result that works. I used to use binary distributions; that's
when I had the most trouble getting stuff working. I did one source
installation and never looked back.

Not for everybody, sure -- but I find I waste less time if I just build
the damn thing from scratch. There are distros that let you do this more
easily (Gentoo comes to mind).

And troubleshooting a GUI is *not* easier if there is something wrong
with the GUI. Now you're not troubleshooting anymore -- you're
debugging. How painful that is for me is a question of depth of
documentation. Trixbox' documentation is not great.

I'm not just shooting my mouth off. I speak from experience here.

>> 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.

Having to hunt around for packages and drivers in multiple locations
cancels the benefit of a "1 hour and you're up" install of anything. (I
respectfully challenge that assertion, anyway -- it was never in danger
of being anywhere near that for me, because things didn't work "out of
the box".)

>> 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.

Have a look at the list archives and see how Trixbox questions are
handled by the list membership.

It doesn't build confidence.

>>> 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.")

Fair enough -- and this would be fine for me if things "just worked".
They often don't. Then I'm back to

> On the other hand,
> emacs/vi/pico/whatevereditoryouprefer and the text config files without
> a GUI are more difficult, but offer greater flexibility

with all of the disadvantages and none of the advantages.

Anyway, that was my input; your mileage may vary.

-Stephen-