Heheh, I really got you going, there, didn't I?! ;-)
I'm afraid you read too much into my comment there, and I think you know that I agree with you by looking at what I have focused on.
My comment was really aimed at type of features, i.e. priorities in what to add.  Regardless of who is using SER, the reality is that SER's development is driven by users and developers who do SIP for a living and mostly within large-scale setups, not SMB, not small setup, not SIP service provider-DIY-in-a-box people.
Thus, robust TLS support is prioritized, not UAC digest authentication. And no, making it easy to change From headers is not prioritized.

That being said on the feature side, now the "make it simple for the user side", Alfred Heggestad and I are working on SER Getting Started for SER 2.0 with a whole lot of features and where features can be selected from a list, and by using the m4 buildsystem, a ready-to-go config is generated.  We plan to create a web front-end as well.

Watch cvs -r rel_2_0_0 for updates and we appreciate any testing and feedback we can get.
g-)

SIP wrote:
No offense, but that's a pretty short-sighted way of looking at things. 
Having worked in the computer business for almost two decades, I can 
assure you, businesses don't use/buy products, no matter HOW stable they 
are, if the total cost of ownership or production is too high -- this 
includes buildout costs, development, maintenance, AND deployment.

If you build a product that's super-stable and super-fast, but 
difficult, time consuming, or expensive to deploy, people will opt for a 
different solution. That's just the way business works.

Take Cray Supercomputers as a prime example. Seymour Cray built this 
fantastic supercomputer architecture, but didn't build any peripherals 
for it or even an operating system, assuming that, if people had the raw 
speed and power available, they'd be eager to use it even if they had to 
build their own hardware/software. Eventually, after three tries at 
three different companies, all with this same goal (he kept being forced 
out of his own companies for his short-sighted and poor business ideas), 
Seymour Cray's own company went bankrupt because people refused to buy 
computers that were difficult to deploy, even if they were extremely fast.

Conforming to standards is good.  Flexibility is also very good. But 
ignoring things like ease of deployment (or *cough* documentation) is 
basically just thumbing your nose at the people who actually use the 
software. ;) 

That being said, I do love the SER project, and I think SEMS has 
incredible potential, but none of that will matter in the long run if 
it's not made easy for people to use. One of the reasons so many people 
go with things like Asterisk and then try and make it work like a SIP 
proxy (which causes headaches galore) is because Asterisk is incredibly 
easy to deploy, exceptionally well-documented, and has third-party 
modules galore integrated into it to allow people to do all sorts of 
things. SER and SEMS combined, on the other hand, while fast, powerful, 
and a fully-featured SIP proxy/Media server combination, has sparse 
documentation, is absolutely painful to deploy, and has only the very 
basic few modules along with it, requiring that, for many features, you 
write the module yourself.

While I would FAR prefer the core SER coders to continue their work on 
making SER the stable, fast product it is, and in piecing together all 
the SIP RFC weirdness into an actual product, SER/SEMS could not go 
wrong by recruiting some more people to write modules, by making the 
install create basic configs that work out of the box, and by having 
detailed and clean documentation.  I'd offer my services, but my C/C++ 
coding is laughable at best (it's been 15 years since I've done any real 
C coding), and I honestly understand so little of the SER 2.0 stuff that 
my writing documentation for it would be very BAD Idea (TM). If someone 
(i.e. a coder who knows what's actually going on) were to write 
framework documentation (much like the very sparse framework docs that 
exist in the modules), however, I'd be happy to take a crack at making 
it human-readable.

N.


Greger V. Teigre wrote:
  
:-) so, we agree then...
As a side-note: iptel.org projects have a tendency to be directed 
towards professionals. This has among other things, the implications 
that conforming to standards is very important and that flexibility in 
what you can do is more important than how simple it is to set up.
g-)

SIP wrote:
    
That's actially a good analogy, Greger...   The pickup truck is 
powerful, able to be used for many applications, and once you own one, 
everyone suddenly wants you around when they need some work done, 
whereas the Porsche is built for speed, is cramped, can't carry much, 
and is too expensive for any practical people to ever really purchase. ;)

Mind you, that being said, we do all our conferences in SEMS. It's 
actually a metric ton easier to set up for conferencing than Asterisk 
(WHY is it you need a Zaptel timing interface for audio mixing, again?), 
can support massively more users (especially if some are in listen-only 
mode), and 'Just works.' 

N.


Greger V. Teigre wrote:
  
      
Hm, I don't agree with that comparison ;-)
Asterisk is a PBX, SEMS is a platform for specific applications. There 
are some common pre-developed applications that easily can be set up 
(like a conference bridge, play announcements etc). However, if you 
need a PBX with lots of features, you don't start with SEMS.

I would rather compare Asterisk to a pick-up truck and SEMS to the 
Porsche. Use the truck for pretty much any work, but the Porsche is 
made for speed... :-)

Using Asterisk as only a conference bridge and playing announcements 
is like using the pick-up truck to move your 12-piece china...
g-)

SIP wrote:
    
        
Offers them? Yes. Offers them in a clean, friendly, usable package? Not 
so much yet.

SEMS has raw capability, but if you want it to do many of the things 
Asterisk can do, you need to know how to code that yourself, or you're 
going to be digging about the code for documentation on features (since 
the current docs are not the world's greatest).

Don't get me wrong, SEMS has its place, and is a constantly evolving 
work of art (we use SEMS for several things in our environment), but 
comparing SEMS to Asterisk is a bit like comparing a bunch of car parts 
to a Porsche.

N.


Fredrik Lundmark wrote:
  
      
          
I'm still learning myself, but SEMS (iptel.org/sems) seems to offer 
many of the media- and/or b2bua-functions that Asterisk do.

///Fredrik



----- Original Message ----- From: "SIP" <sip@arcdiv.com>
To: "Nhadie" <nhadie@tbgi.net.ph>
Cc: <asterisk-users@lists.digium.com>; <serusers@lists.iptel.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 23, 2007 1:38 PM
Subject: Re: [Serusers] why combine ser with asterisk


    
        
            
Asterisk is an excellent PBX system, and makes a very good endpoint in
the SIP chain for all sorts of things -- IVR systems, voicemail
applications, automated messages, etc.

It has an extremely well-written CDR engine, so many people mesh it with
billing applications to produce accurate accounting information. It also
is fully aware of the media stream, which means it's capable of cutting
off a call mid-stream, injecting audio into the call, etc, etc.

Programming for Asterisk addons can be easily done in just about any
language, and it meshes well with the overall structure. Programming for
SER is... not so simple.

As for running them both on the same box, the biggest problem would be
resources. Unlike SER, Asterisk is not designed to be a carrier-grade
SIP proxy. If you're actually proxying the media stream, you'd be
hard-pressed to squeeze more than 150 simultaneous calls out of Asterisk
on even the beefiest of hardware. Add SER to the same box, and you will
quickly run into resource problems in medium-sized environments. It also
doesn't have a lot of the SIP proxy functionality that SER has.

If you're careful, you can configure Asterisk NOT to handle the media
stream and still use it for prepaid solutions (using astcc or
asterisk-b2bua), and this will save you bandwidth (but you'll still
likely run into NAT issues that need to be dealt with somehow) and still
let you use Asterisk as an in-between point.

Together, Asterisk and SER make a very powerful combination for
providing a full suite of services to clientele, and each plays well off
the other's strengths.

N.



Nhadie wrote:
      
          
              
Hi All,

What's the advantage of combining ser with asterisk? I always see
comments like using ser with asterisk is a very good solution etc. etc.
the thing i liked with ser is that it does not do codec translation,
which saves me cpu usage and also bandwidth. if i combine it with
asterisk, would it not use codec translation?

i also read that there is also a problem when ser and asterisk is 
run on
the same machine, why is it so?
if use prepaid billing solution for asterisk like astcc, would i 
then be
able to provide prepaid service?

soryy for asking too much, i'd just like to really understand it. Thank
You in advanced.

Regards,
Nhadie
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

        
            
                
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers

      
          
              
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers


  
      
          
_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers


  
      

_______________________________________________
Serusers mailing list
Serusers@lists.iptel.org
http://lists.iptel.org/mailman/listinfo/serusers