Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:28 am Post subject: [Asterisk-doc] Re: I'm thinking that FTP makes more sense fo
Just a side note on binaries from a net admin with about 20 servers to take care of.
I always try my VERY best not to use compiled source code to install on any of
my servers. Once you start compiling code for installation, you have to
maintain that source code install. This can take a huge junk of an admin's time
and will grow with each server that gets added.
Being able to do a yum check-update / update (or ... insert your package
manager) is essencial for any admin who has to take care of a large install
base. Altho Asterisk has not been installed into a site with a large number of
servers, I'm sure it will get there. Having binary forms of Asterisk would be
SOOOO nice when that happens. (And I'll be doing it as soon as possible) :)
>FTP is the delivery mechanism that most people will expect to use.
>Administrators all know FTP; I would suspect that CVS is a far less common
>skill amongst Linux admins (you might argue that a good Linux admin should
>know CVS, but I'm not so concerned about what skills people _should_ have,
>what matters is what skills people _do_ have).
In fact, I'd guess most Linux admins these days prefer prepackaged
binaries in formats like rpm, and get uncomfortable if you ask them to
compile something. What's more, there's nothing wrong with that. The
UNIX world is changing, in the direction of systems that can be set
up, configured, and maintained, without even installing a compiler on
them. People who don't want to learn about building and installing
software from source code shouldn't be forced to. They can be good
sysadmins without doing that. At least I try hard to think so. ;-)
In addition to the CVS 1-0 stable branch, tar-ed up source code kits
should be made available of 1.0.0, 1.0.1, &c, and, as far as possible,
so should prepackaged binaries for the most common platforms. Such
kits, along with documents in pdf that explain how to install and
configure this baby, will do wonders for the adoption of Asterisk out
there in the real world, where sysadmins need to be result-oriented.
Meanwhile, us old farts can happily stick to using software that we
periodically update from CVS, build, install -- and debug. :-)
Posted: Thu Oct 07, 2004 9:43 am Post subject: [Asterisk-doc] Re: I'm thinking that FTP makes more sense fo
On Thu, 2004-10-07 at 10:28 -0700, Greg Varga wrote:
Quote:
Being able to do a yum check-update / update (or ... insert your package
manager) is essencial for any admin who has to take care of a large install
base. Altho Asterisk has not been installed into a site with a large number of
servers, I'm sure it will get there. Having binary forms of Asterisk would be
SOOOO nice when that happens. (And I'll be doing it as soon as possible) :)
For what it's worth, Steve Pritchard has been working on some Asterisk
RPMS for submission to the fedora.us repository. If any of you are
interested, let me know and point you his direction. (I know he's been
swamped with opening a new storefront, and hasn't yet re-rolled the RPMS
for Asterisk 1.0. He'd probably appreciate any help we can give him.)
And for those of you who prefer to use the source, just ignore me. :-)
> FTP is the delivery mechanism that most people will expect to use.
> Administrators all know FTP; I would suspect that CVS is a far less common
> skill amongst Linux admins (you might argue that a good Linux admin should
> know CVS, but I'm not so concerned about what skills people _should_ have,
> what matters is what skills people _do_ have).
In fact, I'd guess most Linux admins these days prefer prepackaged
binaries in formats like rpm, and get uncomfortable if you ask them to
compile something. What's more, there's nothing wrong with that. The
UNIX world is changing, in the direction of systems that can be set
up, configured, and maintained, without even installing a compiler on
them. People who don't want to learn about building and installing
software from source code shouldn't be forced to. They can be good
sysadmins without doing that. At least I try hard to think so. ;-)
In addition to the CVS 1-0 stable branch, tar-ed up source code kits
should be made available of 1.0.0, 1.0.1, &c, and, as far as possible,
so should prepackaged binaries for the most common platforms. Such
kits, along with documents in pdf that explain how to install and
configure this baby, will do wonders for the adoption of Asterisk out
there in the real world, where sysadmins need to be result-oriented.
Meanwhile, us old farts can happily stick to using software that we
periodically update from CVS, build, install -- and debug. :-)
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum