[asterisk-users] Trixbox vs. Custom install

[Tom Rymes]

On Feb 13, 2007, at 11:53 AM, Tzafrir Cohen wrote:

> On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 10:23:17AM -0500, Tom Rymes wrote:

[snip]

>> 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.
>
> Hmmm... I installed a trixbox system. 'yum update' failed to work, due
> to funny games with yum's configuration. A default centos server
> installation did not have the same issue.
>
> This is just one example.

I have never run into this problem before, and the only change that I  
know of was to exclude the kernel from updates (to avoid having to  
recompile zaptel) Of course, if you want to update the kernel, change  
the yum settings and download and recompile zaptel. YMMV, so if it  
doesn't work for you, then act accordingly, I suppose. As a  
counterpoint to your example, I have installed Trixbox easily and  
successfuly many times with Sangoma hardware.

>> (and you really shouldn't have to in almost all cases)
>
> A GUI does its absraction. By that it hides some information that it
> deems irrelevant. In many cases this information is relevant.

My point that you quoted originally referred to the fact that you  
shouldn't normally have to recompile Zaptel, Asterisk, or anything  
else to get hardware working with Trixbox.  As for your comment about  
the GUI, I agree. My earlier e-mail tried to state that neither the  
GUI or the non-GUI method of installing and configuring Asterisk is  
better. The GUI is better for some, whereas the non-GUI is better for  
others. If the limitations imposed by the GUI are too much for your  
application, then the GUI isn't for you. If the relative difficulty  
of administering an Asterisk server without a GUI is too much for  
your application, then use the GUI.

> One example: just figuring out if FreePBX actually dial, or not at  
> all,
> requires either a sufficiently-trained asterisk guy to review the
> log/cli just to understand why a call did not go through.

I fail to see how this is different from a non-FreePBX setup? Don't  
you still need a sufficiently-trained Asterisk Guy to view the logs  
and CLI to determine why your custom dialplan didn't dial? Not to  
mention to create that custom dialplan in the first place? How does  
troubleshooting a non-GUI asterisk install require less technical  
know-how than troubleshooting a Free-PBX system?

Anyhow, I reiterate that I don't think that either solution is better  
than the other. Determine your requirements, weigh the pros and cons  
of the various GUIs and of running without a GUI and see which is the  
best fit for your requirements. I only object to those who say that  
"No one should use Trixbox/FreePBX, it's too restrictive" or "Running  
Asterisk with a GUI is always Better." Both statements are erroneous.

Tom