[asterisk-users] How long will Asterisk 1.4.x supported/maintained
stotaro at totarotechnologies.com
Fri Nov 21 13:10:01 CST 2008
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 10:42 AM, Matt Florell <astmattf at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 11/20/08, Steve Totaro <stotaro at totarotechnologies.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 3:38 AM, Tzafrir Cohen <tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com> wrote:
>> > On Thu, Nov 20, 2008 at 08:25:54AM +0100, Olivier wrote:
>> >> 2008/11/17 Philipp Kempgen <philipp.kempgen at amooma.de>
>> >> > Tilghman Lesher schrieb:
>> >> > > On Thursday 13 November 2008 08:16:42 Klaus Darilion wrote:
>> >> > >> Is there somewhere a statement from Digium how long they will support
>> >> > >> Asterisk 1.4?
>> >> > >
>> 0>> > > There is no statement, because we haven't even discussed when
>> the EOL for
>> >> > > 1.4 will be reached. Certainly that means it won't happen for at least
>> >> > the
>> >> > > next 60 days, but beyond that, I really don't know.
>> >> >
>> >> > For the average non-techie user who does not want to compile
>> >> > themselves that may sound funny (if not scary).
>> >> >
>> >> > When Debian Lenny (featuring Asterisk 1.4) is finally going to be
>> >> > released that version might not even be supported any more.
>> >> I think to a large extend, Asterisk is not to be considered as binary
>> >> distributed at all, as many hardware it supports is not directly managed by
>> >> kernel team.
>> > Interesting consideration. Debian Etch and RHEL5 are based on kernel
>> > 2.6.18, but support quite a few hardware devices not included in that
>> > kernel.
>> > If this issue bothers you, please help test the alternative timing
>> > mechanism support now included in trunk.
>> > --
>> > Tzafrir Cohen
>> > icq#16849755 jabber:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
>> > +972-50-7952406 mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com
>> > http://www.xorcom.com iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir
>> I still compile and install 1.2 for the most part, for call centers
>> and large systems.
>> The few 1.4 installs that I have done have been for "medium" sized
>> PBXs, say 50-70 phones/users and they have been trouble free for the
>> most part. Safe_asterisk may make some troubles transparent.
>> I am not really sure what 1.4 has over 1.2 for the average PBX installation.
>> Then you have the OpenPBX guys who forked 1.2, I know they have added
>> functionality to 1.2, but the following puts me off. Perhaps
>> vaporware, perhaps not, it all relies on the devs. You also have
>> people like Matt Florell who have continued to add functionality to
>> 1.2 but since Digium won't take them, or the dev doesn't want to sign
>> over their first born, they are hard to come by but certainly out
>> 1.4 may follow the same path, being forked.
>> 1.6 is not on my radar.
>> Steve Totaro
>> +18887771888 (Toll Free)
>> +12409381212 (Cell)
>> +12024369784 (Skype)
> We really just maintain a set of patches for 1.2 (just updated
> waitforsilence a couple weeks ago in fact) and we regularly install
> 220.127.116.11 in call center setups. It is rock solid and extremely proven
> in high-call-volume situations.
> We have started installing 18.104.22.168 on some systems that are not high
> load as well (1.4.22 has some strange issues with it we have noticed)
> because we do have clients requesting to use 1.4 for some of the nicer
> PBX functionality that it has as well as better SIP support.
> We test 1.6 periodically and we are very much looking forward to some
> of the great new features of it, but it crashes very quickly when
> trying to use it in call center situations. just keep in mind that in
> my opinion the 1.4 tree did not become usable until 1.4.18 when most
> of the major bugs were finally fixed.
As a fellow call center engineerimplementer I completely agree with
+18887771888 (Toll Free)
More information about the asterisk-users