In article <0EF08A1199B44F7F112EB853@[10.0.0.14]>,
Kenneth Porter <shiva@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> --On Friday, October 05, 2007 9:11 PM +0000 Tony Mountifield
> <tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > That very much depends on who you ask. Many people (myself included)
> > prefer the original version which is actively developed by Digium in
> > partnership with the community.
>
> Can you say why you prefer it? I've not followed any threads comparing the
> two, so only have the issues listed in the voip wiki to go by. (See link in
> previous post.) I've seen the frustration over Sun's control of OpenOffice,
> and figured openpbx's fork is similarly motivated.
I haven't tried OpenPBX/CallWeaver, so it's not a technical viewpoint.
I suppose it's more a question of trust or confidence. It appeared to me
that Asterisk was forked to OpenPBX in a fit of pique by two or three
individuals. I kept an eye on the OpenPBX website for quite a few months
after the fork, and it appeared to me to quickly stagnate, and didn't
seem to gain any momentum.
In contrast, I found original Asterisk to have a lot of forward momentum
and a large community around it. So I stuck with it, and haven't paid
much attention to OpenPBX/CallWeaver more recently. It certainly seems
much lower-profile than Asterisk.
Cheers
Tony
--
Tony Mountifield
Work: tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx - http://www.softins.co.uk
Play: tony@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx - http://tony.mountifield.org
_______________________________________________
CentOS mailing list
CentOS@xxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.centos.org/mailman/listinfo/centos
