[asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install

[Tzafrir Cohen]

On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 09:53:17AM -0700, Stephen Bosch wrote:
> 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.

You can take those binary packages and rebuild them when you need so.
rpm, deb and similar provide a very strong method of reproducable
builds. 

Well-built packages also tend to work better than a simple 'make
install' because they are better debugged.

-- 
               Tzafrir Cohen       
icq#16849755                    jabber:tzafrir at jabber.org
+972-50-7952406           mailto:tzafrir.cohen at xorcom.com       
http://www.xorcom.com  iax:guest at local.xorcom.com/tzafrir