> it will be more static.
> >
> > See config buildsystem docs:
> >
http://www.iptel.org/sip_express_router_configuration_buildsystem
> >
> > I'll follow the discussions and contribute where and when I can.
> > g-)
> >
> > SIP wrote:
> >> If no one else is going to come forward and second/debate Mike's
> >> suggestion to use FC, and Mike's the man with the server, then I
> declare
> >> this project officially FC-based.
> >>
> >> These are the people that have so far contacted me and are
> verified for
> >> working on the SER Bundle Project, and for what tasks I have
> them available:
> >>
> >> Jai Rangi -- kickstart work in FC
> >> Arun Kumar -- flexible
> >> Samuel -- some time/flexible
> >> ram -- testing
> >> Mike Trest -- server, testing, FC wrangling
> >>
> >> Tasks we still need to fill (some of which can be filled perhaps
> by the
> >> people listed above as flexible or others in the project):
> >>
> >> Core:
> >> -SERWeb install/config
> >> -RTP Proxy install/config (for base RTP proxy package -- not
> strictly
> >> SER config)
> >> -SEMS w/voicemail, away announcement, and conferencing support
> >> install/config
> >>
> >> Tools:
> >> All tools (ser_ctl, sipsak, tcpdump/ngrep, wireshark/tshark, sipp,
> >> sip_scenario, spyagent+sipspy
> >>
> >> Also, with no install package for SER with a basic config, SER
> itself
> >> will have to be installed/scripted to install with a tailored
> >> config(ser-oob.cfg) for the correct system/parameters. I'm
> ASSUMING that
> >> will go into the basic core install scripts, so I didn't add it
> in up
> >> there, but if this is an invalid assumption, someone has to let
> me know
> >>
> >>
> >> As you can see, if you're interested in being a part of this
> project and
> >> can contribute time to getting it going, there are plenty of
> areas left
> >> where we need people to help. Just let me know, and I'll add you
> to the
> >> list.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> N.
> >>
> >>
> >> Neil Fusillo wrote:
> >>
> >>> As long as the environment can be built to be stable, I'm in
> complete
> >>> agreement. While our initial adopters may be the tinkerers and the
> >>> risk-takers, I'd say that a good number of those people already
> try out
> >>> SER (and may ultimately choose something with less of a learning
> >>> curve). The biggest market for a SER bundle in the long run is
> going to
> >>> be those who want to get a carrier grade SIP proxy up and running
> >>> quickly and easily. Who that might be is somewhat difficult to
> >>> determine, but I dare say we don't want to position ourselves as
> >>> building a bundle for those who're willing to take risks. ;)
> >>>
> >>> That said, the decision for CentOS came about because it is
> simply a
> >>> GPL-compliant duplicate distro of Red Hat Enterprise Linux --
> the single
> >>> most common and most popular distribution amongst people who
> run linux
> >>> in a carrier-grade situation.
> >>>
> >>> Fedora Core, being the test bed for RHEL, has the same
> structure but
> >>> newer, slightly less-vetted packages. However, if we can ensure
> >>> stability, then none of that matters and no one will really
> care what
> >>> distro it's built upon (as long as it's familiar to the admins who
> >>> manage it). If you say you can build a stable FC-based SER
> server, then
> >>> I say we go for it.
> >>>
> >>> Do we have a second to Mike's motion to use FC as the base distro?
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> Mike Trest - Personal wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> Hi,
> >>>>
> >>>> This is to summarize my opinions about FC* distro use.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMHO, I think FC* is best selection as it contains many more fixes
> >>>> than does the older CENTOS (based on 5). I have deployed several
> >>>> hundred FC* boxes in VoIP applications. This is over 10,000
> active
> >>>> ports without "Enterprise" stability issues.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMHO this project needs the quickest path to the Enterprise
> community
> >>>> regardless of the OS/distro used.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suppose the ultimate question is who is our target? Ourselves,
> >>>> naturally. However, I suggest our target is not the bankers or
> >>>> major corporations with lots of rules and procedures. That group
> >>>> will never adopt SER until they have a commercial-grade support
> >>>> system to advise their IT folks what to do for every question
> they may have.
> >>>>
> >>>> IMHO our initial target is those early adopters who are trying to
> >>>> create new businesses in telecomm or consulting-on-telecom.
> We want
> >>>> them to have a solid core that they can leverage into their new
> >>>> appliances and specialized applications.
> >>>>
> >>>> The early adopters are risk-takers (This means us as well!) They
> >>>> demand an open box in which they can face the SIP world with some
> >>>> assurance of standards compliance while at the same time they can
> >>>> face their clients with something better, faster, cheaper, and
> >>>> innovative enough to get paid well for their efforts.
> >>>>
> >>>> Making a technology "buy - in" decision at any point in time
> is only
> >>>> a check point - not a final resting place. IMHO, we are
> better off
> >>>> selecting an OS/distro effort that has a large share of both early
> >>>> adopters and long term commercial support - - - so long as it
> meets
> >>>> our current and future technical **AND** target market
> >>>> requirements. Research confirms that the RH/FC community is the
> >>>> largest community with name recognition and respect among both the
> >>>> "geek-innovator" community as well as the Enterprise community.
> >>>>
> >>>> ..mike..
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> Serusers mailing list