Slashdot Mirror
Is Linux Used in Production Telephony?
jamesva asks: "The telecommunications industry is rapidly converging on Windows NT/2000 for all telephony and voice-related needs. Most ACD systems, virtual operators, and voicemail are being ported to Windows if they're not already running on it.
In the past, telephony apps have existed most
notably on OS/2, SCO, and even DOS. However,
free Unix (or unix-like) platforms have absolutely no penetration in this area, with seemingly no chance on the horizon.
The Bayonne app server from the GNU folks seems to be the one exception, but even then there doesn't
seem to much built around it or anyone using it. It reached a 1.0 release in September and was met with no fanfare. Even the
LinuxTelephony doesn't seem to have much news. Can someone prove me wrong? Why is this the case? I'm interested in finding out if anyone is using Linux (or any free OS) in a production environment for something like voicemail or ACD. These types of systems require high availability and reliability and Linux just seems like a natural fit."
I tried to install Linux and Slashcode on my homebrew hacked PBX telephony system, but then all my calls were being routed to goatse...
Either this is complete & total ignorance on my part, or, well, it's just complete & total ignorance. I thought that Large scale Unix based systems basically ran the switches, backbones/large servers behind Telephone/Telecommunication Networks. That's how the uber geeks found out about it, trashing for manuals to all of these VAX/VMS/UNIX systems, dialing in to them, and hax0ring their way in to screwing with their friends/enemies who may have flamed them on a local BBS. Am I wrong?
Avaya does this now, and they are porting more and more of there application VoIP services to LINUX, as well as Win2K like you said.
but a lot of solaris/sparc machines doing our telephony. The uptime is just too good on a *nix vs 2K.
errr....umm...*whooosh* *whoosh* Is this thing on ?
Last year I tried to find linux software to use with my voice capable hardware modem. I looked *hard*. All I could come up with were a few pre-alpha apps that needed to be compiled that worked either very badly or not at all.
Linux being the DIY operating system that it is, people tend to write drivers for the hardware that they have. How many linux hackers have dialogic boards in their machines? At >$500, I doubt the number is very high. No drivers, no applications.
The first question I'd ask is: Are the applications there? If not, there it is.
You mentioned one application that uses Linux. There are probably many more that work under Windows, because that's probably what companies are developing for. More to the point, that's probably what companies are asking for -- "Give us something that looks like what we're used to for web surfing already!"
Now granted, within the past few years Linux's desktop has grown leaps and bounds beyond where it was -- but then, it wasn't there when these companies first started developing their apps, and wasn't an option then.
That, ultimately, is the issue.
This is Mark Spencer's most recent project. Same guy that did Cheops and started GAIM. Really cool stuff.
Within the last 6 months I went through a phone system evaluation process. I was focused on IP telephony to a certain degree, so it was limited.
I agree that most items are being ported to Windows (scares the heck out of me, it's one thing for your web server to be down 6 hours, try having your phone system down for 6 hours).
The primary area where new development was being done, that wasn't Windows, I found to be in VxWorks. This makes sense to me since a RTOS really is a better platform, and at the same time, bypasses all of the Windows worms, etc.
Ok, I give up, why you?
OK its text to voice, but AFAIK they are selling hard to the telecoms industry with rVoice
Their development platform is primarily Linux. I only know because a friend works there, I am not associated with them in any way.
I don't read your sig, why do you read mine?
Digium. A GNU/Linux telphony company based in Huntsville, AL. They sell T1 PCI cards for GNU/Linux machines and distribute a free as in GPLed software PBX. Check them out!
Disclosure: No, I don't work for them, but I have had lunch with them and they're pretty nice guys!
A company called West Telemarketing is working toward moving over their VRUs (Voice Recognition Units) from SCO to Linux by integrating the Dialogic (Intel) drivers into the kernel.
From what I have heard, things are in Beta but very stable and soon to be moving forward to production systems.
-- Knowing too much can get you killed, but knowing who knows too much can make you rich.
What runs on my 5Ess then? Or Voicemail system? UNIX has had fantastic penetration in the telecom industry, what with being written in large part by a telco, for telco use. (SYSV)
Linux penetration is a totally different story. Unless I see less than 5 minutes a year of downtime, and more than 20 years of hardware and software support for a platform, I can't see using it any time soon.
-Besh!
Here at work we use a 3Com NBX 100 system .
I've FTP'd into it and it seems to be running some sort of a BSD variant.
I guess it could also run linux.. but I don't quite feel like pokeing around in our production telephone system.
The reason for having Linux on a machine is to be able to access it via the net and/or play with it. Both of these are VERY BAD ideas when considering a telephony application. Telephone systems shouldn't ever allow remote administration, IMHO.
So, with no net, no place to play, what reasons are left to want to use Linux?
--Mike--
I just installed asterisk PBX software at home this weekend; not exactly a 'production' environment, but I was impressed. Bayonne looks promising too.
In other words, I think the fact that vendors support creation of telephony systems using Linux at all is an indicator that it is in fact being used. I would not use the relative success/failure of a handful of telephony related projects as a guage for the success/failure of Linux in telephony.
But for what it's worth, I am aware of a $7-digit custom speech system that's running reliably on RedHat 4.2
3Com's foray into telephone systems runs a BSD variant (NetBSD, IIRC)... (This is the stuff that's supposed to compete with the Meridian telephone systems)
We have an NBX100 system; the main chassis is modular, and connects to the telephones over standard ethernet ports (so there's no need to have separate phone wiring - the same jack used for your computer can be used for your phone; if you're short on network ports, the phone even has an RJ-45 passthrough, so you can plug your computer into your phone, and the phone into the walljack, which goes back to your switch.)
By default, the phones run their own protocol (not IP - possibly IPX, but I've never put a sniffer on the line to find out), but there is a mode to have them use h.323, so you can have remote extensions running over the internet.
I used to work for Lucent/AG Communication Systems. The project I was on, their ClientCare call center system (think big... an entire in and outbound call center solution for arbitrarily large companies), ran on Solaris and FreeBSD. We had Solaris for the big Oracle Parallel server DB and FreeBSD tied the little bits and pieces together such as the CSR clients [which ran on Windows], the ISDN line management, and the playback of our utterly annoying hold music. It worked rather well, in the end. I think they're still doing it that way.
Here's a link to the product itself: http://www.agcs.com/productsv2/CallCenter/works.ht m
#44
If you include voice of IP implementations on *nix, you have several choices. For instance, Clarent does most of their implementation on Sun machines. This won't help you if you're looking for free stuff, but that is an entirely different question.
Mythological Beast
Wake up - the future is arriving faster than you think.
We only run unix os's with a few NT machines (mostly admin consoles) in our datacenter. The problem with putting a Linux box in production, we have platinum support from Sun. Every server is a sun box, and its standardized for backup, database and clustering. If we put a Linux box, it has to run it on sparc hardware, and we have to have special procedures just for this one box.
Its much easier to run GPL'ed software ported to Solaris, than to switch the OS. We in fact run many GPL'ed software packages, the cost saving is amazing. The backend software is highly specialized, and will not be ported to linux.
To make sure the software is locked in production, the developers put license strings for everything, and then they lock it down to IP/Domain/Hardware/os version/etc..
Sometimes you want the software to be written in house, but with the features, support, updates to software, its easier to write a check and get everything at once. If you want to know who the main players are, Nokia, Nortel, Software.com and Ericsson are the largest players.
For us it was a balance of Windows and Unix.
I used to work for a Fortune 100 software and hardware distributor that also has one of the highest revenue-generating sites on the Internet. We ran a all of our call routing and control services on Unix (can't remember if it was Solaris or HP-UX for those servers). BUT we then transferred all the post-event descriptive information to an MS SQL Server to do data mining against the data. Some people might have thought that MS software ran the whole show, since most managers would use the SQL app to see how their sales teams were doing, but the whole thing was in fact fed by Unix.
They probably *could* do the same thing under Linux, but I'd rather that they not do it. (The situation with Oracle on Linux is already too close IMHO).
A company offering telephony related services has enough to sort out without having to use a non-established(for telephony) platform. If other operating systems have already proved suitable and reliable in this field, then why should they increase their workload by working out how to do it on Linux?
VOCAL
Now I hope and pray that I will But today I am still, just a bill
The real bear in getting this to work was finding a modem suitable for use with vgetty; vgetty's docs list some voice modems known to work, but most of these are 5+ years old and $300 and up, if you can even find them for sale.
Clued in by a Usenet post, I found a modern modem that works: the 3Com 2976 Voice/Fax/Data modem. It sells in online stores for around $50. (Note that not all modems which purport to have voice functionality are supported, and controllerless "winmodems" are not likely to work.)
I also tried using Asterisk, but it wasn't really suitable for my voicemail needs. As I recall it did not handle disconnect detection very well, potentially leaving the phone off the hook for a long time. There was also a pronounced lack of any HOWTOs or detailed documentation available either with the program, with the PBX card I purchased from them to run the program, or on the Internet in general.
My sense is that Asterisk's creator actively discourages freely available documentation, in order to have people avail themselves of paid support. To his credit you do get one month of free support for the software and the card when you purchase the latter, and he was helpful in IRC when I spoke with him.
Let's see... Linux RedHat 7.1 and 7.3 for the Operating system, Oracle 8i Database, Oracle 9i Application Server, Oracle's integrated Apache, X.25/HDLC hardware/drivers. Collecting 100's of thousands of AMA/OCC/CDR/EMI call records a day from telco switches... DMS, 5E, EWSD, DCO, Softswitches. Loading the call records into Oracle, running statistical reports against the call records. Collecting OMPR traffic reports. Mediating call records, sending them to billing. Nope... I guess that Linux isn't involved in telephony at all...
http://www.nams.net/
doug@nams.net
65.0% slashdot pure
I know for a fact that the AUDIX system from Avaya/Lucent/Bell Labs runs on SVR4 Unix. I watch it boot up every time we loose power. :)
I also know that Avaya is moving a lot (maybe even all) of their voicemail stuff over to Linux and W2k.
...but it's being eaten...by some...Linux or something...
http://www.digium.com/
In 2002, Linux Support Services, Inc. changed their name to Digium, as the focus of the business had grown to include not just Enterprise Linux Support but Linux-based Telephony development. Digium has developed the Open Source Asterisk PBX Software Suite. Finding a lack of high-quality, reasonably priced telephony hardware for Linux, Digium has moved to develop powerful hardware solutions for Linux based telephony. Digium offers a range of professional services to complement our hardware and software offerings. Custom software development services are available. We can enhance and extend our software offereings to provide custo mized solutions for telephony customers, and consulting services are available to help plan and implement enterprise telephony systems and Linux based data networks. Digium, based in Huntsville, AL, is located in Cummings Research Park, 3 minutes from Interstate 565 and 10 from Huntsville International Airport. If you are interested in visiting, please contact us for driving directions and staff availability.
There has been a lot of Linux buzz over at Ericsson for quite some time now. They are betting the shop that the underlying JAMBALA architecture will run on Linux Clusters. The lab that is working on this initiative is located in Montreal, Canada.
Remembering your name in the morning is already a good start...
With Microsoft's new product life cycle plan here ,
windows NT and 2000 are now approaching their decayed support eras.
This would mean no new licenses for Windows 2000 only three years after the release. So "new" products are going to have to use something else. I don't know how dependant on the OS the applications are but the savings and customizability should make it worth it.
Microsoft would push them toward XP embedded.
I can't speak to what software runs on phone switches, but I can speak as a user at the "medium sized company" level, and as a user I can say that the industry seems to work primarily with embedded boxes for telecom. When you want a switch you buy a switch, and it does what it does. Whether that switch runs linux or SunOS or VxWorks or some proprietary OS is pretty much irrelevant to you if it functions for you in its capacity as a switch. If linux is being used as the basis for phone switching equipment, people probably wouldn't know, unless they had some contact at the company who developed the switch. This is a traditionally very embedded market, where name recognition of an OS like "Windows" or "linux" or whatever is irrelevant to the function of the device. Telecom can be thought of as the ultimate high availability application. In all my dealings with telephone switches, nothing ever crashed or needed to be rebooted. EVER. Even when installing new hardware. This kind of high availability doesn't readily lend itself to traditionally end-user oriented operating systems. I suspect the reason linux isnt perceived as penetrating the telecom sector is because its not, and if it were, it wouldn't matter because people who set up and managed the switches, by and large, dont give a shit how it works, just that it works, that it works all the time and never stops working. :) If your job is to turn a nut, does it really matter if you use a wrench, pliers or your fingers as long as the nut gets turned?
This too shall pass.
There does seem to be efforts afoot to use Linux in the telecom arena, maybe slanted towards embedded Linux, but evidence here.
"Provided by the management for your protection."
Quicknet has a low - cost 1 port card that will do the trick with Linux and Windows drivers:
http://www.quicknet.com
Also check out Pika for 4 port cards with traditional analogue and VoIP capabilities with Windows and Linux drivers:
http://www.pikatech.com
Aslo check out the Bayonne project. Linux based Open Source telephony system with interfaces to Quicknet, Pika, and other cards:
http://bayonne.sourceforge.net/
If you are talking about OSS (Operational Support Software), then you are talking big-boy UNIX (AIX, HP, SUN). You are also talking big honking hardware (32-way boxes, 16 gig ram, terrabyte disk arrays, etc). Nothing suitable for linux or windows.
However, if you are talking GUI junk (CSR front end, billing system GUI, middleware junk) then you are probably talking windows. You won't see these ported to LINUX any time soon.
For the record, I work as an integrator for telecom software.
"The market alone cannot provide sufficient constraints on corporation's penchant to cause harm." -- Joel Bakan
I know of several call-center (telemarketing) solutions that run on Linux. There are Dialogic drivers (and isn't $500 a bit conservative for a dialogic board?)
In any case, if you're looking for some sort of call center solution with built in data and scripting solutions, one of the largest developers of such a product uses Linux - Noble Systems http://www.noblesys.com
I certainly wouldn't say that they've got the best solution or the most intuitive interface, but they have the best call prediction engine that I've seen. They actually just (18 mo. ago?) re-outfitted the 2nd largest telemarketing company in the world with their solution.
Warning: even though their server software is Linux based, their client software is either terminal or Win32 based (through FourJ's)
I manage two Asterisk servers used in production environments. It's rock solid and the hardware is inexpensive and reliable. Best of all the code is freely available so you can hack on it to your heart's content. In fact I'm working on integrating it into the billing/provisioning system of my ISP so we can get customer info pulled up on the help desk person's screen as the phone is ringing.
Check out http://www.linuxsupport.net/ for information on Asterisk and telephony hardware. I believe they sell some starter kits ranging from about $100 (with a USB FXS adapter and an FXO card) up to $1000 (includes a T1 card and channel bank.)
leaders in this area until a few years ago (I haven't been keeping track, so they still may be).
But all the 3rd party vendors recognized that UnixWare was a sinking ship, and started asking the hardware vendors (DLGC, NMS) for Linux support. Why? Because it's cheap and it at least looks like the redheaded stepchild UnixWare never had. So with a little work, the 3rd party vendors have their app running on Linux.
Add into this the fact that Microsoft also recognized UnixWare was a sinking ship, and started marketing. Remember, it's all about developers developers developers. So many 3rd parties were confused and switched their app to Windows (partial rewrites) instead of switching to linux (minimal porting effort).
I think that for some people who ended up on Windows, there may be some displeasure with the reliability / quality. But I think they are probably outnumbered by the people who are having positive results with W2K/NT in these setups. The net effect is that Windows is gaining in this market.
Why are people still using the outdated PBX system? Why should
you be limited to 64 channels on a T1 line? What about VOIP???
Case
in point... Cisco 7900 Series IP phones..
Cisco IP Phones are designed to enhance productivity and address the
specific needs of the variety of users in your organization. The Cisco IP
Phones 7960G and 7940G feature a large, pixel-based LCD display and can support
additional information services including Extensible Markup Language (XML)
capabilities. XML-based services can be customized to provide users with
access to a diverse array of information such as stock quotes, employee extension
numbers, or any Web-based content. The possibilities are endless
Last time I checked, XML was everywhere which means you could build a
phone system to suit your needs
In the SIP community, Linux is used quite extensively. I just returned from an even called SIPIt which is the major interoperability event for SIP based telephony. There were around 50 vendors there -- everyone from big players like Cisco and Polycom to little startups. Many, many people there were using Linux for their products -- I would say at least 50%.
I also have worked with several SIP companies recently, Vovida, and open source SIP stack and suite of applications later aquired by Cisco, and Jasomi, a company that produces telephony boundary control products. These places used Linux extensively as the deployment platform, and there are real working deployments out there using these products.
So for SIP anyway, the answer is a resounding yes!
The PBX, ACD, and similar applications are not large scale. Such systems are often located at the customer's facility and sizes of 50 to 300 users are a huge chunk of this market. I've been out of this industry for almost ten years but the actual switches and routers tended to be embedded applications and then some form of PC would be used for monitoring, configuration, generating reports, etc. If the PC crashed a supervisor didn't get a report, and had to reboot and issue the print command again. Not a big deal. The embedded software kept running during all of this happily switching and routing calls.
Telephony apps are big bucks. Combine that with who usually buys them for a company (non technical managers, or committees) along with 50 rounds of RFPs... you'll end up on a platform already used by the customer, every time. After all, the client is already using Win32. As the switch side is tied tighter and tighter to the computing side, Win32 becomes even more attractive since it's on every desktop, and on the back-end as well. No sales pitch is needed in that respect... the myth of "seamless integration" is offered as a benefit, and what sounds more seamless to a customer using already Win32...
You combine this with the reality that small switch products are typically gutted versions of the real ones. Feature sets of Real Ones are dictated by Real Companies with Real Money. They buy things like Nortel(Wiltel/Nextera/whatever it's called this week), Compaq (or whatever they're called this week), HP (again). They don't buy switch products like ROLM, Panasonic, or Fujitsu... and they don't put E-Machines or $200 Walmart boxes on their user's desktops. All are great at what they do, but try to put any in a real telecom center and you'll be laughed at.
Make a (freeOS) version, none of the large places will buy it. That means your large-scale version will need to be either embedded or Win32; and as a vendor, once it's built you won't double your development costs by making a totally separate (FreeOS) smaller version when you can simply cut-n-paste from from a system that's already done(since the development is already paid for). From the large solution, a smaller one is made for the rest of you... and it's pure gravy, because designing it didn't cost a dime. And quite frankly, low-end users like it... it's Win32, they use Win32... they can have their little Screen Pops and "seamless integration". Yeah, they can have it with a FreeOS just as easy, but... apples and oranges aren't seamless to the layperson. They've already got Win32, they already know it. You tell me which one you'll buy, and remember your name is "Sally, the GM", and you don't care to learn about Telephony. Or computers for that matter... you just want this idiot sales pig to give you a switch and leave, so that you can get back to work.
There are a few FreeOS tel things around, but by and large, they're anecdotle when compared to even an Option11. The ROI for developing a large scale FreeOS solution just isn't out there yet, which means you won't be seeing any gutted "small" versions either... only small (anecdotle) solutions that hope to some day be scaled up into something useful. It may change (hopefully,) but not yet.
help me i've cloned myself and can't remember which one I am
Have you looked at HP's telephony apps on LInux/Unix?
They are third to fourth in sales in the industry..
Don't Tread on OpenSource
Building a production VOIP/ISDN/POTS system on Linux. There are definitely some challenges but between asterisk and bayonne and the hardware support on Linux, I think there is definitely the possibility. Bear in mind that when I started, I did not know anything about telephony, but I am picking it up rapidly.
Anyway, I just thought I'd throw in my $.02 (USD).
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
Having worked with the Cisco AVVID IP telephony system, I can say that in it's current form, it runs *quite* well on Windows. I've got a phone sitting on my desk right now, and we've deployed it throughout our company. Since deployment, it has been completely trouble free. There are many extremely cool features that it picks up, through it's integration with Microsoft Exchange and other Microsoft services. The expansion and customization ability for the system is tremendous.
That said, I believe that the biggest problem in getting a telephony system under Linux will be pulling it all together in one package. With Windows, Cisco has the advantage (or disadvantage, depending on who you are) of working with a single company. Aside from the management interface, everything is based on Microsoft technology. They're using MSDE for their data engine, along with Microsoft Exchange, and Microsoft Windows 2000 for the server.
It all really depends on how much work Cisco wants to put into it. With Microsoft they have pull to help get things done, because of the opportunity it represents for Microsoft. They've got a vested interest in keeping the system running, and keeping good relations. Because Cisco would (potentially) have to use different technologies from different companies, they may have more trouble getting everything pulled together. The software Cisco needs exists, but free software developers may not have as much drive to support such an endeavor, since Cisco is essentially the only group who would profit from it.
I think Cisco would be more apt to port it, if someone could easily demonstrate that the interoperability and features exist to support the platform.
Ask Slashdot
This isn't designed to be a flame, or a troll and this isn't an attempt to start a my OS is better than your OS flame war. It's just a fact of life that I've observed.
As a manager responsible for exactly these types of things for a very large corporate, I wouldn't use Linux in these applications, or in any business related way in my company. I cannot.
'WHY EVER NOT?' I hear you ask (and yes, I can hear that indignant tone, and the anger rising in your voice from here).
My Answer to why not (You're not gonna like this): "Because it's Linux".
My business-based perception of Linux is that it's a random assembly of a large assortment of independant programs. They probably all work together, but no-one ever checked that to a level that I, in my position, can rely on to the extent that I would be prepared to put my butt on the line with.
Linux is a *kernel*. That's it. I can, to some extent, rely on that - but even that has it's issues.
There are too many operating systems that call themselves 'Linux'. So tell me, which one is the One True Linux(tm)? And while you're there, answer me this: Do you answer rhetorical questions?
I don't hate Linux. I *love* the open source movement, and I love free software almost as much. There's an incredible array of absolutely brilliant work out there. I use Linux lots, every day. I run Mandrake and Red Hat at home. The fact that, despite that I've been a professional unix administrator for over ten years, but the fact that I still have problems with the most basic 'these should have been fixed before release' problems on a daily basis with both my samples of 'Linux' tells me that I absolutely cannot put my nuts on the line with these OS's in a business critical production application
Telephony is exactly that: A business critical production application. Even more so for a company that makes it's money from telemarketing or customer service. I absolutely *cannot* send the entire staff out for coffee mid-afternoon because the flurgenhurger didn't work with the dooverlacky and it took the production box down.
Because Linux is so loose, so uncontrolled, and so 'random', I cannot - in my capacity as a senior manager responsible for the uptime of business critical systems - risk using 'Linux' in any of it's incarnations in this environment.
What I must do is stick with the tried, true, and proven. Those that are whole operating systems, not just kernels, that are centrally managed and controlled by one body.
What are those? Which are the OS that I /would/ use in my production
environment? Solaris, FreeBSD, and HP-UX of course, in that order. What else?
Now, one more thing: If you've read this, and you're angry, and you feel that you need to flame me for this: You didn't understand what I just said.Regardless of that, I'm expecting a raft of "you're stupid" and "you like goatse.cx" and "your mother smells of elderberries" and other well considered counter-arguments. Save it thanks.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Back when I did telephony programming, it was all on OS/2, largely because OS/2 was a realtime OS, while Windows is not. *nix also generally has realtime kernel support available as well, and the high-end switching software that isn't proprietary generally runs on *nix.
At the time, however, hardware providers were working on Windows APIs, probably because of the prevalence of Windows in the workplace. There was a big push years ago towards PC-managed telephony over old proprietary PBX systems. It gave businesses the ability to have their IT staff do a lot of customization without very much training.
The important thing to note is that the migration to Windows was on the corporate end, not on the provider end. There's no way any seriously critical switching software is going to be running on Windows.
Well, according to my SmartFilter, not only do they sell PBX stuff, but also oodles of sex.
Interesting.
Now I have no idea that SmartFilter, Microsoft, or anybody else is doing this. But...
Wouldn't it be a powerful marketing strategy to get your competitors listed as sex (or otherwise icky-poo) sites on as many censorware lists as possible?
It wouldn't be anywhere NEAR as obvious as getting them onto black hole lists. Email disruptions would be noticed right away. Censorware deletions are much more subtle - and less suspect.
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
The company I work for provides ehanced telecom services (sorry, no names, just in case they don't want this information public) that has hundreds of call centers across the US and thousands of full time operators.
We use commodity linux systems on dell hardware to drive dialogic record/playback/synth on carrier T1's and our switches. We also use linux based systems for some limited text to speach operations as well.
I would put a rough estimate on the number of these systems at around 200 with 4-16 T1's per machine.
I submitted this as a story when Avaya first cut over to Linux. Currently only their small business server runs W2k. I promise that thing was/is an abortion (pardon my crudeness). As another poster said, Linux is the horse Avaya is betting on, and the new servers supposedly are selling like hotcakes.
:-(
Basically Avaya ported their software to Linux and it just runs as another application. My question though, is how come I can't download the source to the GPL'ed parts of the server (none of Avaya's SW is GPL'ed)?
When I think of those poor lost souls using Cisco's AVVID
If thou see a fair woman pay court to her, for thus thou wilt obtain love
I'm not up on my telephony definition but VoiceGenie runs on Linux
UNIX/Linux Consulting
Some Nortel products have processoring units that run a flavor on Linux on them. I'm not sure if they've made their way into any shipping products yet.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
Dialogic (now Intel) used to support SCO. Now it's Linux and Windows. Our app (fully automated telephony system handling IVR, call transfers, bridging, etc. features and a volume of over 10,000,000 minutes annually) runs on Dialogic/SCO but we're porting it to Linux. It's been reasonably painless - we're just testing extensively due to the platform change, Dialogic driver change from 2 to 5.1, etc. Downtime is not an option so our CEO will not allow the app to run on Windows (tee hee, how often do you see an enlightened CEO like that??).
There are some Linux CATI (not strictly telephony but call-center support) projects over at FreshMeat. Ericsson is using Linux in their "Carrier Class" systems. I've spent time with Vovida and Bayonne at LinuxWorld Expo and some Telephony conferences and they seem to be reasonably vibrant projects.
So yes, Linux is used in telephony.
~~~~~~~
"You are not remembered for doing what is expected of you." - Atul Chitnis
"Is Linux used in production telephony"?
What the HECK do you mean by that?
Are you talking about:
1) The core of a telephone carrier's network?
2) The core of the network of an ISP that is providing some telephony-related application (like POTS-emulation-over-cable, VoIP, or VoIP-related QoS enhancements)?
3) Commercial standalone PBXes?
4) PBX replacements (as a plugin card/driver/app for a PC)?
5) Modem-based answering machine/fax applications?
6) Desktop VoIP applications?
7) Server-room network VoIP servers?
8) Server-room VoIP/POTS bridges?
9) Voice menu hell servers - standalone or part of one of the above?
or a host of other "Production Telephony" applications?
When I saw the question the first thing I thought was 1). But the text seems more directed to 3) and 9), while responders are all over the map.
EACH of these seems to deserve its own item!
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
...and it is utter crap, a complete pile of stinking shit. I was the original engineer on the implementation project, and I switched jobs just to get away from it.
Top it all off with draconian licensing and grotesque consulting fees, and you have every IT managers worst nightmare.
I cannot say this more forcefully: Avaya software sucks.
HA! I saw SIP, and thought that was a link to vodka.org ;)
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
...even then there doesn't seem to much built around it or anyone using it. It reached a 1.0 release in September and was met with no fanfare.
So I'm supposed to bet the farm, our company, and MY job on recommending a 1.0 release of a pivotal tool that:
a) no one else uses
b) requires a massive $ investment to get off the ground
c) has only been out for 30 days.
d) has no support from the company that builds the call center respondent database.
Not likely.
If for whatever reason it craps out, we are out of business. I don't care so much about the operating system as I do the combination of operating system AND application. A crappy tool that runs under Linux is far, far worse than a good tool that runs under a properly administered Win2k OS.
Recommending Linux merely because it is Linux is a fast way to the unemployment line.
In addition to our WAN/LAN I also run a medium size phone switch (195 nodes / 16 IP Phones / 2 PRIs for switched access / 1 dedicated Long Distance T1). When you get to the corporate level you're buying a solution; not building one in house, because phones are essential to the day to day operation of the company. Period. I think generically when you say phone switch you're referring to everything telco past the demarc; switch T1s/PRIs, operate internal digital stations, provide analog lines, route calls, manage security, reporting/tracking/billing, Voicemail, Auto Attendants, Hunt Groups, Digital Faxing- the whole 7 layer enchilada. Few corporations are going to allow their IT departments to go the Slashdot way w/ so much on the line. A modern phone switch must reliably scale to thousands of nodes including IP devices, support Unified Messaging (receiving faxes & voice mails through PC), have reporting right out of the box, must be easy to use, and work on the first cut over. While the word 'easy' is certainly a very relative word- in my experience most geeks (a word of complimentary endearment in my vocabulary) can easily master telco while the reverse is not often true. Believe it or not, in the old days these were sometimes the roles of separate administrators / departments.
You're right that *nix is a perfect fit for all of this; remember Unix was invented at Bell Labs. The auxiliary applications are there; to support your phone switch you need to reliably record and report all activity across your switch for billing, acct. tracking, etc. I would guess that *nix runs the backbone.
If you'd like you can become a dealer for the company that claims to have 'the world's first Linux technology based voice processing' including Unified Messaging.
By the way I think that Bayonne is encompassed in the umbrella project of GNUComm; hopefully it's just a matter of time before someone finishes the Embedded Linux Phone Switch. As an incentive to anyone who develops and releases a free system: even used handsets cost big money for a particular phone switch; pick wisely 'cause you're most likely stuck with it for a little while. Caveat: you will most likely be pushed out of the market by softphones.
Since you're in the market and I just went through this myself contact me off list and I'll share my experience with Inter-Tel Technologies which is one of the fastest growing companies in the US (short version: no I don't work there and overall positive).
Great occasions do not make heroes or cowards; they simply unveil them to the eyes. -Bishop Westcott
For a REAL PBX, see the Fujitsu 9600. You may be more familiar with Nortel Norstar, (look at companie's phones) but that's the Ford Escort of PBX's.
"I can't give you a brain, so I'll give you a diploma" - The Great Oz (blatently stolen sig)
The last (and only) telephony project I worked on ran on AIX. The software package we had didn't support rewinding to hear the last few seconds of a message, so I had to write some plug-in code that would be triggered when the rewind key was pressed, keep track of the current negative offset, and only play back the correct number of bytes from the stored wav file.
It was kind of nasty. Not because it was particularly difficult (although debugging required a group effort to make multiple incoming phone calls to test it thoroughly), but because it was, in a theoretical sense, totally unnecessary. No telephony software package that costs MONEY should lack a simple rewind-replay feature.
bytesmythe
Hypocrisy is the resin that holds the plywood of society together.
-- Scott Meyer
Granted, a lot of what you said is subjective, and as you acknowledged, there is no point in arguing over opinion. Furthermore, I feel I understood what you said. In support of this, allow me to summarize your post: You a manager responsible for critical systems, and you absolutely do not modify your production environment without significant justification and complete risk-management.
..., etc.", but as "I do not have enough information about Linux and its tools to implement solutions for that platform". I firmly believe that _with proper procedures_ the appropriate Linux tools can be implemented in a risk-free way, its just a matter of knowing how to do it or knowing someone who does.
I don't think you're alone in that position. In fact, there are likely a number of Slashdot readers that are also responsible for business-critical systems. I even read an occasional story about businesses switching their mission-critical systems over to the Linux platform.
What this means is that even if you aren't comfortable with Linux, there are those in positions similar to yours that are, and they are growing their business in areas they could not otherwise.
It is possible that there does not exist a Linux application that could grow your business in any significant way. If the benefits of a change do not outweigh the effort involved, I admit it is a pointless modification.
However, if there exists a tool that could provably benefit your company, for example, by increasing profitability or decreasing the costs of operation, would you be biased against it because it runs on the Linux platform?
I am planning to start a business myself, and there is no part of it I would trust to the Windows platform. To use your words, I find it "loose, uncontrolled, and random". It does not suit my needs, and Linux does.
In closing, I interpreted your comment on the whole not as "Linux apps are too risky for me because of
I've been involved in many Large carrier switch control application platforms being delivered using Linux since 1994. Sprint was an early adopter in Asia. Hutchison Telecom also used Linux in their cellular network application switching platform. British Telecom deployed a worldwide unified messaging platform in 2000 that was controlled by Linux in the U.S.,U.K.,Japan, Australia, Norway, Spain, Italy and Germany. NTT used a Linux controlled calling card platform in Japan that ran well over 20,000,000 minutes per month. Embratel and Worldcom deployed the first carrier installed calling card platform in Brazil in 1999/2000 that was running a Linux based switch control platform. If I remember correctly the platform at Hutchison made it over 400 days without a reboot.
QUALCOMM (CDMA/wireless/etc) is entirely Unix based.. do/will they use Linux? I have no clue.. will they use windows? NO.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= - The Celtic - =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Why's that free platforms don't perform well at Telephony servers? The Linux telephony is just not structured enough. Because there's not for Linux one guy who's going to application writers (ACD, pre-dialers etc) and telling them "Hey, we're going to build a soft-PBX platform which is going to enable you to sell applications for more platforms than today. We're going to build a Telephony API for ya, how do you want it to be?"
And then the same one guy gets to telephony H/W manufacturers and says "Hey, we're going to build a soft-PBX platform which is going to enable you to sell more stuff. Only thing we need to do is get the drivers right, and you wouldn't want to see your cards unusable with our platform. So we're counting on your help."
The key there is that when the middle-man (MS) says he's going to build a soft-PBX platform, others know they can rely on him because he's got an interest in the thing (selling more licences), so they actually help him out. Application developers and hardware manufacturers think alike: "Why invest into a relationship with a bunch of noncommitted hobbyists who have no clear interest in making the technology work? What if I don't like what they do, can I say anything? Why don't I just go with the guy whom I know shares an interest in the technology? And in the end, you've got a system running and everyone finding a way to profitability.
It's a partnership between people or companies that works.
I think it's more of a mystery why certain free projects perform so well rather than why many fail.
Why? Simple: it was dictated by the hardware we used. To support a few hundred VOIP connections, you need to offload work like the codecs and in some cases the H.323 stack to DSPs and CPUs on the cards. These cards -- usually CompactPCI -- are very expensive. These cards don't give you a lot of choice on the platform to run: "you can have any color as long as it's black."
If you want telephony to use free OSs, talk to the vendors -- e.g. Dialogic (now Intel). Natural Microsystems (NMS) actually does release Linux drivers now (it didn't two years ago, Solaris was the only Unix available) but it's doubtful Intel ever will.
Unlimited growth == Cancer.
I run Mandrake and Red Hat at home.
That says it all. I bet that you DON'T put the latest version of Solaris on a production server farm the moment it comes out, either. Apply the same conservatism to Linux, and you will be rewarded.
soo to support yahoo ... hehehe
As someone who has been working with the telephony industry for more than 15 years I find your "the industry is going to NT/Windows" cry to be far more alarmist than reality indicates.
... the heavy lifting is still left predomenately to UNIXen and Vaxen (and a host of other more obscure OSes).
... though I have encountered them mostly in Europe and Asia. Even in these environments, Linux is still considered primarily a baby Unix and is not used to host actual switching platforms ... though it is being used for control & management and billing systems.
... many of the next generation of 'soft switches' are hosted on UNIX platforms [removing the need to maintain many of the obscure, aging OSes ;)]
;)
It's true that it is much easier to find NT/Windows in a NOC or operations network these days; they typically serve as platforms for reporting, remote graphical configuration interfaces, desktop workstations, etc.
Linux and Open/FreeBSD can be found in telephony networks
Finally, the role of UNIX in telephony is becoming more central (or core if you would)
So, the news of UNIX's demise is perhaps a little premature.
Natty
Maybe the rain Isn't really to blame. So I'll remove the cause, But not the symptom!
First and foremost I'm a wireless guy, landline is pretty much a black hole to me these days....
Telecom has been undergoing many changes at the lowest levels for a few years. Most UNIX systems in telephony are used as SCP's (Signaling / Service control points) / HLR's VLR's.. etc. A SCP will provide a service such as SMS, E-911, prepay, or something over the SS7 network. The SS7 network is at the lowest levels very similar to DAP, being a heavyweight protocol that requires its own circuits (ISDN, T1, ATM, etc.). While SS7 has been fabulous for creation of large and wonderful telecom networks it is becoming harder and harder to find people who understand even the basics of it. What's worse is the SS7 solutions of yesteryear (produced by say Lucent, NewNet, and Tandem) are no more. The newer SS7 solutions (say SignalWare, Distributed7, etc.) haven't really been able to cut the mustard. Things have been getting worse for a while, and people know it... but the fine people at ANSI and IEEE, Lucent, Nortel, IBM, and the like have come up with a solution. Make SS7 lightweight (I.e. IP based like LDAP).
Many things have happened in order to get SS7 (a very demanding protocol indeed) to work over IP. The first milestone was essentially dumping TCP for SCTP/IP. Much has been going on in this realm, the lk-sctp project has been busily cranking out code for the 2.5 series kernel, and will likely make Linux one of the first *NIX based operating systems to have a NATIVE SCTP implementation. Adding SS7 to the top of this is about as easy as creating an SCTP daemon.
While SCTP and the Sigtran suite of protocols (M3UA / SUA ) are moving ahead quickly there are other projects that are working on implementing a heavyweight implementation of SS7 - such as openss7, and even the PBX / softswitch project asterisk.
While all this may be nice and good, it may be worth noting that Inet Inc. has an SS7 network monitoring solution called GeoProbe. While some parts of the system run on a solaris server the actual cardcages and "proprietary" equipment actually run Linux. (at over 300k a site, that's a pretty big win for Linux).
As always I'd love to hear what's going on in other sectors of telecom with Linux.
The 3B20 was a bit-slice architecture that predated the WE-32000 and 32100 microprocessor chips in the 3B2/3B5/3B15 series. It was roughly a VAX-780 class machine, i.e. about 1 MIPS and two refrigerators for the main computer plus another for the UPS (4 truck batteries...) The 3B20 Duplex machines had two CPUs running two halves of an operating system (which was DMERT rather than UNIX, but had a UNIX layer on top of it) - you could upgrade the OS while the thing was running.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I asked a friend of mine involved in this who is also a big proponent of Linux and he sent me this reply and said I could post it. (Shameless attempt at adding karma):
/. login) is that Intel wants to make inroads in the carrier space and they are working on what they call "carrier grade" linux. The development is being done in conjunction with the open source develpoer lab www.osdl.org and the service availability forum www.saforum.org."
"Ok. Basically I would say that most of what was discussed was accurate. Windows 2000 dominates the enterprise/call center telephony space. Solaris on UltraSparc dominates the carrier/service provider (especially in the SoftSwitch SIP/MGCP arena). Of the enterprise Linux solutions, I would say that vovida.org looks like they are the real deal. I have not been that impressed with asterix (even with the input of the GAIIM developer). The only other inroad that I would mention (can't decide if I should dig up my
Hmmm... A year ago I got a phone call from my US counterpart about a "PC" that was spreading Nimda.
Turned out that it was the PABX control system. It didn't run any virus protection software, because all antivirus software tested brought down the software.
Now, here's the horrible bit. The PABX itself is a solid bit of engineering, with an ASCII only bit of RS232 based interface controlling it. If those bits had even remotely been documented, anyone with experience with something as simple as expect could have coded up an interface to it in a day at most -- much less time than what was invested in bringing the Windows interface to it on line.
To this date, we're not using the advanced features of the system because just getting it to work right on the supported platform turned out to be too great a nightmare to offset the possible gains from it.
PABX interfaces are the prototypical illustration of why documenting the low level interface can benefit the advanced user without impeding sales of the "integrated" windows "solution" to customers who can deal with interfacing Windows stuff. We're as shortstaffed in Windows DDE skills as we are in low level Unix stuff, but if the RS232 interface had been documented, we could've assessed the risks and benefits of talking directly to the hardware and make an informed decision on which group should handle the PABX interface and which tools to use.
The PABX is basically on life support, because the bundled apps suck and implementing a simple toolkit that covers our basic needs is impossible for lack of docs. That, in management terms, is a "lose-lose" proposition.
Bert Driehuis -- All I asked was a friggin' rotatin' chair. Throw me a bone here, people.
I've worked for a few telephony companies in my time. . .two that stick out succinctly in regards to Linux are Priority Call (makers of Oryx) and Boston Communications (do the pre-paid calling back-end to most large cell carriers).
Priority Call (http://www.prioritycall.com) makes an uber-trunk-switch that does all types of cool stuff from one-number-anywhere to pre-paid calling to massive e-mailed voice-mail to web voicemail -- it is the swiss army knife of telephony (thier main competitor, BTW is Comverse). Priority Call has sold switches to the likes of Bell Atlantic and a lot of Mexican and South American cell vendors).
Anyway, their systems were passive-backplane PIIs (at the time) with Dialogic (owned by Intel) ISA-bus switch boards (Dialogic boards also have thier own bus to interconnect them to aide the ISA bus) and Mylex RAID controllers runnning 9 Seagate Cheetahs. They used SCO OpenServer because SCO was just about the only telephony OS 'back in the day' and it was pretty stable. As a side note they also legally used a fair amount of OSS in Oryx, including a hacked-up apache and ncurses.
SCO OpenServer, though, has not been actively developed on for a *long* time and not only does it show its age, but frankly it is just about the worst OS I have ever worked on (I don't mean to flame you OpenServer-lovers out there). Support was a bitch. Bug-fixing was a bitch becuase SCO was not longer developing OpenServer not to mention that later versions of OpenServer were hacks to old ones in attempt to add new features without the proper architecture. As much as I want to flame I'll leave my beef with OpenServer at that.
Needless to say the limitations of OpenServer were apparent and they found that *it does not scale* well at all. Thus, they moves their home-brew proprietary Oryx database to Tru64 using rack-mounted Alphaserver DS10s and kept OpenServer for the fron-end and switching to keep migration smooth (Comverse, BTW, uses Tru64 on Alphas -- which this whole push by HP to move to HPUX is going to really piss off a lot of telephony companies). For massive installs they used Sun Netra T-1s in a customer-specific manner.
Later, they finally realized that not only did OpenServer SUCK, but it was *expensive* too ($500 a copy). Thus they started to port to Linux and wrapped it into one massive migration strategy that included new hardware (Compact-PCI).
The fact of the matter is that people hate change. People complained about how Linux companies weren't doing so well not to mention that run-of-the-mill support people FEAR UNIX and the migration from the OpenServer database to the Tru64 was painful (had to re-do all the flow-chart-like step-by-step hold-my-hand this-is-how-to-use-unix cutsheets for some people)
My manager at the time (and the best manager I have ever had) sold Linux -- simply stated, "who cares if the Linux companies go under -- what is better security then HAVING THE SOURCE CODE TO THE WHOLE OS!). During the port, though, Linux had a few limitations that slowed the deployment:
1) OpenServer is such a hacked beast that porting to Linux from it was non-trivial.
2) Dialogic (the heart of the telecomm industry) did not make Linux drivers at the time. Thus they decided to move to NMS (Dialogic competitor) cards
that did support Linux as well as Compact PCI.
3) At the time Linux did not support hot-plug PCI which was one of the design specs and the main reason for moving to Compact PCI.
4) Not even NMS would ship source-code drivers -- only compiled modules. THIS IS A BIG THING as one can only run stock RedHat kernels or specific versions they support or else you'll get unresolved symbols or flakiness in the drivers. Face it, the stock RedHat kernel is *not* meant for telephony. Not only that, but the whole security argument of having the source code to the OS is negated because if NMS for some odd reason decided to stop developing Linux drivers then the company would be stuck with one version of Linux forever.
In the end it was not Linux's limitations that killed the migration but the fact that they rolled the whole migration into the massive hardware/software roll-over and when hard economic times hit and the person who spear-headed the project left, those that hate change won and the whole project was scrapped (some people think it is better to live with what you know versus venturing into the unknown, right?)
In summary, the things that I think would help adotion of Linux in the telecomm world are:
1) Above all else, open-source NMS or Dialogic drivers. People fear Linux companyies instability too much and if their vendor decided to stop supporting Linux it would screw them.
-OR-
2) A company come about that makes hard-core telecomm-grade switch boards with open source drivers that gives Dialogic a run for its money. I'm not talking about the "internet phone jack" guys, I'm talking about boards that can handle dozens on trunks (read T-1s). Dialogic used to be the main reason for companies not adopting Linux because they basically own the PC-based telephony market and they used to ONLY speak NT and SCO and trust me, as much as I hate to say it NT is better then OpenServer from a support and development point of view (although OpenServer is more stable then NT).
3) Keep moving forward with Linux on the desktop. Most people to this day *fear* UNIX and if Linux can be made common and user-friedly the managment types (and support types) that fear change will be less reluctant to let the engineers use Linux. It sounds convoluted, but this is how MS did it. Linux on the desktop indirectly helps all those who want to convince managment to use Linux a LOT as it shows that support costs will not be as high
as it is 'user-friendly' and they can hire monkey support cheap.
4) Linux clustering. Linux NEEDS good high-availibility open-source clustering. No matter how good your hardware is you can not get the telecomm "five nines" of uptime with one computer! A good first move would be a good filesystem that supports mutiple hosts sharing one fibre channel array.
Why do telephony companies migrate to NT/2000?
1) Tru64 is dead thanks to HP.
2) People are starting to fear that Solaris will go the way of Tru64 and future migrations are *very* expensive.
3) People fear UNIX and support costs are high due to this fear (need more geeky support people).
4) Dialogic only used to speak OpenServer and NT (I don't know if it is the same any more). NT is by far the lesser of the two evils in development and support (not reliability).
4) Managment fears Linux companies instability because they are thinking in the 'old school' support issue -- if a vendor goes under and you can't buy support your company is screwed. Please, educate them that HAVING THE SOURCE CODE TO THE WHOLE OS is teh best security. And please coerce NMS or Dialogic to make open-source drivers as their proprietary drivers negate the last argument!!!
As for Boston Communications, I did support for them and they used NT. That was one of the worst nightmares I have ever experienced. Try remotely managing hundreds of telecomm nodes all over the country over 56K frame-relay links using Remotely Possible (PC Anywhere clone). Not to mention the BSODs and managment blaming you when they could not report "five nines" to the carriers and thus had to pay them mucho $$.
About the only thing I can think of is the fact that Linux distros generally install the kitchen sink, and FreeBSD prefers to make you add ports/packages yourself. But with a custom install (and a script to duplicate it), that can be taken care of.
Is it some sort of "stability" issue? What kind of stability? How often are you going to be playing with expect/send pairs in a chat script to get PPP working on a production telephony box? Maybe it's API "stability"... in which case I'm obliged to point out that FreeBSD currently only emulates the 4.3BSD syscalls (see COMPAT_43 in your kernel config.)
It obviously can't be anything to do with commercial support, because Linux gets far more of that than all of the BSDs.
Would you mind enlightening me?
~~~LXT~~~
Life is like a computer program: anything that can't happen, will.
The reason why is that true geeks know that voice communication has no proper place in the world.
May we never see th
Fundamentally, because FreeBSD is an Operating System.
As you've guessed by now, I subscribe to the train of thought that Linux is *not* an OS. Red Hat is an OS, Mandrake is an OS, Caldera is an OS, Debian is an OS. Linux is just a kernel.
Why is this an issue for me from a commercial point of view? Well, with FreeBSD, I get to go back to one group for any issues. The whole thing, kernel, binaries, packages, - the works - is managed and documented as one single entity.
If I go Linux, I've made a kernel decision. FWIW, I believe that the Linux nothing short of a bloody brillian kernel. What lets Linux down in my eyes is the operating systems that use it. I have to choose which one, then I need to be convinced that the vendor is committed, that the vendor manages the system well, that I'm not going to be faced with "we didn't design that part" finger pointing wars when I have issues...
I hasten to add that FreeBSD isn't, IMNSHO, the grand solution either. In fact, FreeBSD is annoying the shit out of me right now. I cut my teeth on BSD boxen way-back-when, I'm a BSD boy at heart. Still, as I intimated earlier, my home runs on Linux. I have Mandrake/Intel and Cobalt Qube/MIPS boxes as servers, and Red Hat for a desktop. There are no up/running BSD boxes of any description here.
Why? 'cos the Qube was a freebie \, Mandrake proved itself be be a good server in lieu of a suitable BSD, and Red Hat seemed like a good thing to play with for a desktop. FreeBSD got the arse because the interrupt code in the PCI stuff is broken, and the PCI-PCMCIA bridge stuff I need to make my wireless gear work, doesn't.
On the other hand, I can't afford to be so fickle at work. I need a whole OS with a strong design and project management behind it. That's why, as I said, Solaris, FreeBSD, HP-UX gets the vote. Two of those are commercial products with the incumbent entity-to-point-lawyers-at that senior management loves so much. The other has proven itself to me.
About the only thing I can think of is the fact that Linux distros generally install the kitchen sink, and FreeBSD prefers to make you add ports/packages yourself.
To be honest, that's something that I think most of the Linux based OS's do better than FreeBSD does. FreeBSD invites you to pick a generic build, and, as you say, installs the kitchen sink. Many of the Linux OS's offer much better control
At, I might add, the cost of speed. Scripting is the solution of course, but I can still have a good working FreeBSD system up and running (including custom kernel config and compile) in less time than Windows 98 can be installed (bad comparison, I know, but I raced a guy once, that's how I know!). On the other hand, I've had way too many two and three hour missions installing some Linuxes. Not good.
Is it some sort of "stability" issue? What kind of stability?
In a way, yes. It's the kernel -vs- whole OS thing, and the business-comfort that comes with it.
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
What gave you the impression that I'd work for you?
I find your ideas intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.
Hi,
I work for the biggest telecommunication enterprise in Canada and we migrate our SCO servers to Linux (Redhat 7.x). We have a LOT of servers across Quebec and Ontario.
We use Dialogic and NMS cards with T1. We provides many real-time applications on it for all clients that use a Vista 350 (or similar) screenphones or wireless phones. On our servers, we also run text to speech and speech recognition applications.
We saw a big improvement in our servers performance and reliability.
PS: Sorry for my bad english.
because you can't even get a simple winmodem to work with it.
Be wary of any facts that confirm your opinion.
when this shows up on the same day.
You're compiling software on your production machines? How ghetto. In the real world, we compile software on our development boxes, package it, and deploy it to the production servers. A compiler on a production box...please.
Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
I must admit, it does sound pretty hairy - what happens if a build goes horribly wrong? But, for one-off things where you can stand a little downtime, there's no real need for a development *and* a production box.
I certainly wouldn't like to try do develop my telephony apps on a live system though...
http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=3041
I sent this contact to Magee a while ago after a dinner conversation that floored me. The person was dropping hints at me for MONTHS about something happening, and one day, he told me that Avaya outright dumped NT/2K for linux on everything. Windows will be supported for basically as long as existing clients want it (years and years and years), but from now on, everything is linux.
I asked for a press release, and was pointed to an utterly forgetable announcement that never mentioned linux, or that MS was on the shitlist, it was sad. When I went back to the source, he told me that 1) yes it was the correct release, and 2) it was indead a total shift from one to the other. Like the Inq aricle says, it was not a snap decision, or a vapor release, it was developed, tested, and debugged for 18 months before it was... err.. not announced with no fanfare.
Overall, the products are quite real, you can buy them, they run linux, and have displaced MS. Yay. Next niche to conquer is......?
-Charlie
There are/were several switches, not just Definity.
I worked with the INDeX switch, which to my mind had a much better user interface on the handsets than the Definity. I understand it was more reasonably priced too. We tried making decent APIs for call centres using Windows (though since we went from RS-232 to ethernet other O/Ss would be feasible if anyone used them). Even so, the software teams and firmware teams did lack coordination, so the code underneath the API was a bit like a swan madly paddling under water.
At my new job we have an INDeX switch; it would seem a shame if it got swallowed by Avaya into a big amorphous Definity mess.
Hint to new boss: don't fire me. Every time I leave a job the stock price goes through the floor a few months afterwards!
Web-based? In that case, Linux on the server lest your PABX get CodeRedded. IRL, marketroids would still drown the web pages in half-broken JavaScript like they do with the little routers - but at least there's a half-decent server platform involved.
Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
I worked for three years at the biggest telephony billing system vendor, Amdocs, the Israeli company that support Ensemble, the billing system that operates most of US POTS calls and most of the European GSM ones, besides being the dominant player at cell phones in places as South Korea and elsewhere.
.Net instead.
Amdocs started as a pretty much technical savy company, with a Unix system to do yellow pages layout. Delivering this system leveraged them to do the billing systems for the Baby Bells, when they got mainframe and data processing knowledge. It was GNU friendly, using most of the GNU toolchain such as gcc, GNU make, RCS and so on.
Supporting cell phone billing could have deepened open systems commitment, because these systems again run in Unix systems, mainly HP-UX. But the interface was done in Sybase PowerBuilder, as opposed to the POTS "Philishave" 3278 terminals.
After big money arrived, MBAs took power. Text processing was migrated from Unix WordPerfect to MS WinWord, and it is a pain to browse technical documentation in MS Word, I tell ya. Technically-savy people migrated to better jobs or higher up in the corporate foodchain, and today very little of the staff has even an IT background. Most don't even know the tools they use enough to be able to evaluate something else, and even the GNU tools in use are left to rot. People are still using GNU Emacs 19, RCS use was never upgraded to CVS or something else, and people are generally wary of the GNU commitment due to a lack of understanding.
The option of porting the PowerBuilder programs to run under POSIX and X Window System was never explored, instead "smart" clients are going Citrix MetaFrame, that at least gives them the option of using X Window System at the desktop, but I never heard of one that does.
The billing system back-end is always a commercial Unix, generally HP-UX. It is seriously misused, with a stupid multilingual setup that complicates administration and consumes resources as many times as there are languages supported. I've seen a billing system in a small GSM operator that needed to support interfaces in four different languages using up two SuperDomes, where a more intelligent system would have taken at most half such a system!
Needless to say, the predominance of HP as a hardware and OS vendor does not encourage alternatives to MS, as HP itself is deeply commited to a "MS everywhere, Unix where strictly necessary" policy. That's why they need and support Samba so much: they gave up on open systems desktops a long time ago.
There were unofficial talks of supporting GNU/Linux, but until I left there nothing came of it except a small intranet webcam server... when I setup a spare PC as squid cache to save on bandwidth it was no sooner discovered by supervision than took offline, even if half the office, including system analysts, programmer and project managers depended on it to read technical documentation and surf.
All telephony operators I visited while at Amdocs, in South America and Europe, were pretty much married to MS, using MS Exchange as email servers and that is it. They generally use MS all over the place, eventually migrating some web server or other non-critical system to Apache or HP-UX because of reliability; but when something delicate as MS Exchange breaks, the standard answer is to just throw more resources at it. Technical and historical discussion on open vs proprietary systems is generally discouraged as disruptive of chosen directions. The preferred platform for development is Java, but there is strong pressure to consider MS
Many managers are completely uneducated on both general culture and Informatics, so all this is quite unlikely to change soon, unless GNU systems make a big splash either on cost, support and scalability on the back end or on ease-of-use, resources consumption and interoperability on the desktop.
The bright side is that there is one or other small non-critical back end system being evaluated on GNU/Linux, usually SuSe, Mandrake or Red Hat. Few people even heard of free software or Debian, mostly it comes from some daring software vendor or a curious underling as myself.
Leandro Guimarães Faria Corcete DUTRA
DA, DBA, SysAdmin, Data Modeller
GNU Project, Debian GNU/Lin