[asterisk-users] Platform decision ...

[SIP]

Steve Totaro wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 1:52 PM, Mauro Sergio Ferreira Brasil
> <mauro.brasil at tqi.com.br <mailto:mauro.brasil at tqi.com.br>> wrote:
>
>     Hello there!
>
>     During some research on Internet I found the following comparison on
>     site Voip-Info (see,
>     "http://www.voip-info.org/wiki/view/OpenPBX.org+FAQ"):
>
>     The main points listed on Asterisk's "CONS" that concerned me were:
>
>       * Conferencing on Asterisk depends on Zaptel hardware and/or kernel
>     modules for timing;
>       * Lack of built-in STUN support for SIP NAT traversal;
>       * Asterisk doesn't use SpanDSP;
>       * Use of no longer maintained Berkeley DB1 engine as its internal
>     database;
>       * Asterisk doesn't allow CSRC entries in RTP;
>       * Asterisk doesn't have an universal jitterbuffer for use with any
>     channel type;
>       * Asterisk doesn't use POSIX realtime extensions (having dependency
>     with Zaptel timing);
>
>     We were considering Asterisk as the chosen platform, but after reading
>     this I got a little worried.
>     The comparison considers 1.4 old version of Asterisk.
>
>     So, can someone give me an update on what have changed for this items
>     considering new 1.6 version ?
>     Maybe someone can point me a site with an updated comparison.
>
>     As long as I could see by now SpanDSP is present on new version of
>     Asterisk, so this item isn't a difference any more. Right ?
>
>     Thanks and best regards,
>
>     --
>     __At.,
>       _
>
>     *Technology and Quality on Information*
>     Mauro Sérgio Ferreira Brasil
>     Coordenador de Projetos e Analista de Sistemas
>     + mauro.brasil at tqi.com.br <mailto:mauro.brasil at tqi.com.br>
>     <mailto:@tqi.com.br <http://tqi.com.br>>
>     : www.tqi.com.br <http://www.tqi.com.br> <http://www.tqi.com.br>
>     ( + 55 (34)3291-1700
>     ( + 55 (34)9971-2572
>
>
> Don't forget to add FreeSwitch to your comparison chart too.
>

Then you'd have to add the con:   cryptic, difficult to find, and wholly
incomplete documentation.

Don't get me wrong. FreeSwitch is a very nice back-end product. But as
far as ease of putting it into deployment goes, it's a nightmare from
its complete dearth of anything related to coherent docs. It still feels
very....  nuts and bolts. Like being handed a Porsche Boxter engine,
frame, and a wrench and being told to sort of 'figure out' how it all
goes together. And even when you do, it will function screamingly well.
But it won't have doors, windows, AC, or creature comforts that we've
all come to expect.

N.