I installed the Schmoozecom System Admin module to find that changes I make in the settings are not applied.
When I for instance change the time zone and save the new settings, nothing happens and the previous settings still are active.
Can anyone shed some light on this situation?
Thanks in advance.
Everyone hates when I say this but why trust a web interface to do sysadmin functions. You can change the TZ, hostname, IP address in the OS and know that it has really been done.
Example, if I set the network parameters in /etc/sysconfig/network-scripts/ifcfg-eth0 then run the command ‘service restart network’
1 - I get immediate feedback of any syntax errors
2 - I have control of every possible parameter
3 - I have visual confirmation the change was made
Sometimes, particularly with voicemail admin, and possibly with system admin, it is necessary to manually restart all or part of your system to get the change to take effect.
If you make a change and it is not reflected in the operation of your system, try these commands, in this order, testing your system after each:
the above restarts FreePBX and Asterisk
service network restart
The above restarts your network interface
The above reboots your machine.
Well, the whole point of freepbx is:
-You don’t need to know which config files are involved in the settings you want to make;
-You don’t need to know the structure of the config files;
-The # typo’s probably is lower then when editing manually because Freepbx does all the hard labour for you.
And aren’t we all lazy in the end?
Restarting the machine does not solve the issue.
My guess is some kind of permission problem. however, as far as I can see all file permissions are set OK.
FreePBX is not just a GUI front end it provides the PBX functionality.
In my opinion it is scope creep and a waste of resources to be making out of purpose modules such as sysadmin. It has nothing to do with FreePBX. It takes cycles away from programmers that could be working on features and enhancements.
One person’s scope creep is another person’s facilitation of use. Because a module provides no utility to a specific individual, it is specious to argue that it robs resources from something more beneficial. By the same logic, the energy put into the entire project may better serve humanity if it were instead devoted to world peace, provided you agree that world peace is of greater importance than a dial tone.
A GUI lowers barriers to entry, and can educate new users about features of which they may not otherwise be aware. In my opinion, commonly used features should be accessible via the GUI regardless of whether they relate specifically to call handling or not.
Lorne - I by no means set the tone for the developers so these are my opinions?
Everyone has their own agenda’s. Mine is clearly different that yours.
In my opinion it is not a good thing to continue to lower the barriers of entry. We have made it appear so simple that anyone can download this software and setup a phone system for their small business. One would hope Enterprises’s would know better.
The bottom line is that many users download the software and end up with half working phone systems and frustrated employees and partners. I have cleaned up this scenario many times. Some in the case that the project had been written off.
No matter how easy the GUI is the subject matter is still complicated. If you don’t understand IP networking all the GUI’s in the world are only going to facilitate screwing things up faster.
I did realize that was your opinion (as you stated), I merely chimed in with my own (as I stated). Obviously we do not agree, although I can certainly see merit to your side, particularly with your role on the front lines, where you actually witness the unwarranted reputation that OSS gets from clueless but (hopefully) well meaning admins.
But it is the reality that barriers to entry are comparatively low and dropping all the time, which is pretty much the essence of the open source concept, a “for the people, by the people” type thing. Maintaining barriers, especially artificially, runs counter to open source principles. In any case, that niche is already well served by Cisco. My completely subjective belief is that wider usage does more good than harm.
I agree, and since I make my living helping enterprises deploy Asterisk based solutions you would think that I would advocate anything that would enlarge the base of users.
My motives are exactly as you said, every day I have to explain to folks that the software is not junk and that the quality of the people and the plan dictate the outcome of the project. It seems that everyone these days knows someone would completely screwed up an OTTS deployment.
The other aspect is the shear pain I have witnessed at organizations, especially when management tries to use the PBX to fix management problems and doesn’t properly match process and workflows to features.
I enjoy these conversations, thanks for the banter.