[asterisk-users] Softphone on Linux

[Tim Panton]

On 8 Feb 2007, at 12:33, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 06, 2007 at 09:41:30AM +0000, Tim Panton wrote:
>>
>> On 5 Feb 2007, at 21:46, chester c young wrote:
>>
>>> Need to deploy between 50 to 300 lightweight Linux - only browser
>>> and softphone.
>>
>> You might want to consider our lightweight java softphone (Corraleta
>> SDK) - it can be embedded in
>> a web page - zero install/config in the client. The UI is in HTML and
>> javascript,
>> so you can get it _exactly_ the way you want it.
>
> I have a feeling that anything that is written using a Java Plugin  
> will
> be hevier than a decent Linux desktop program.

It's all in the graphics libraries etc. If you are already running
firefox, the plugin isn't a huge extra overhead. Xten or Kiax
will have a full set of their own .so which almost certainly
won't be shared with anything else that is running.

The only way to know for sure would be to try it on a sample system -
fire up the browser, and click on:

http://click.mexuar.com/webuser/click/145/userurl/Westhawk
And give me a call (in UK office hours).


>
> "Zero install" would mean "Java" which is still not exactly "zero
> install" in most Linux distributions. It also means that this is not a
> native applications, and thus has unneeded limitations: you configura
> the browser and the softphone in two different places.

No, not exactly - you configure the softphone on the _server_
all the config is in the surrounding web page (hence on the web server),
all your linux images can be identical, and you don't need a (nfs/ 
samba) fileserver either.


>
> (For example: kiax has its own addressboox, but twinkle uses KDE's
> standard addressbook, which is probably accessible in some other  
> ways).

But for a lightweight linux you won't be running KDE :-) Java is
a feather in comparison!

(I've had corraleta running on a 32Mb 133Mhz arm5 under JamVM, so
just 'cos it is Java it doesn't have to be heavy)

>
> As for setting it exactly the way you want it: here consider a simple
> window manager and a very liberal use adaptations per window  
> properties.

Yeah, but it is still visibly a softphone, with a web embedded
softphone you can make it look and feel like anything
your web designer can do.

>
> Test if a browser such as dillo or elinks is good enough. If it is: it
> will save you a whole bunch of memory. And your users will have  
> less to
> tinker. Consider giving that window a fixed size and location.

That's a good option - it all depends on what the user requirements are.



Tim Panton

www.mexuar.net
www.westhawk.co.uk/