Open Source Telephony 17
glengyron writes "Every Phreakers dream of Open Telephony took another step forward today when a small Australian company released their OpenPBX product at CeBIT Australia. Suddenly a massive community of programmers will be able to easily write their own Telephony applications in Perl!"
poor, poor product (Score:3, Informative)
That said, their product is very very poor. Almost no documentation in code (which is a MUST when you go open source), very buggy, doesn't work with most middleware (like Genesys, CT-Connect, TSAPI, Symposium etc.).
Re:poor, poor product (Score:1)
Kick Ass Company (was Re:poor, poor product) (Score:1)
My issues with their costs(plus an offtopic aside) (Score:2)
The rest of this is going to be totally off topic (besides the fact that I am from the same place as the product mentioned in the story).
Google Cache Links
The poster was smart enough to put in google cache links to the story.
Re:My issues with their costs(plus an offtopic asi (Score:1, Informative)
"The PC required can be low end. Typical free OSs run very well on much less powerful machines than required by modern closed source OSs. Use low cost commodity hardware rather than leading edge. A monitor is generally not required for IVR servers powered by free OSs, as they can be remote administered via telnet."
So the $200 saving in hardware could quite easily be realized.asterisk (Score:3, Informative)
* hey, it's slashdot anyway, euh, sorry, its slashdot any way.
Re:asterisk (Score:2)
Re:asterisk (Score:2)
Limits (Score:2, Informative)
Bayonne (Score:2, Informative)
Bayonne (Score:2, Informative)
Asterisk also supports Perl scripts via their own
Re:Bayonne (Score:1)
All these projects are functional and each have their niche, but asterisk is obviously way more mature as a pbx than either bayonne or CT server.
Telecom application developers want nothing more than good docs. I've been through enough pain with bayonne to feel any other way. If those aren'