2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP
-
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
@scottalanmiller & @RojoLoco it most certainly is not a strange name for a telephony project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2600_hertz
Yeah, not a name to get market share or branding wiht, but it is a peffectly logical name for telephony.
Ah. Learned something new. But as an audio guy, my point was that it would be 26k vs. 2600. Didn't realize that was a significant frequency in telephony.
26k is upper bound of hearing right?
More like 20k for men, 22k~ish for women. 26k is supersonic. Human hearing range is basically 20Hz-20kHz. And to "hear" a 20Hz wave, you have to be about 17m away from the sound source (the wave is literally that long from compression to rarefaction).
I knew 20-20k was normal. thus ends my normally retained knowledge of human hearing.
-
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
@scottalanmiller & @RojoLoco it most certainly is not a strange name for a telephony project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2600_hertz
Yeah, not a name to get market share or branding wiht, but it is a peffectly logical name for telephony.
Ah. Learned something new. But as an audio guy, my point was that it would be 26k vs. 2600. Didn't realize that was a significant frequency in telephony.
26k is upper bound of hearing right?
More like 20k for men, 22k~ish for women. 26k is supersonic. Human hearing range is basically 20Hz-20kHz. And to "hear" a 20Hz wave, you have to be about 17m away from the sound source (the wave is literally that long from compression to rarefaction).
I knew 20-20k was normal. thus ends my normally retained knowledge of human hearing.
Well thanks to my bionic ears, I can hear all that you can... and more. The only advantage is that as I get older, I hear [comprehend] better, not worse, ha ha.
-
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
@scottalanmiller & @RojoLoco it most certainly is not a strange name for a telephony project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2600_hertz
Yeah, not a name to get market share or branding wiht, but it is a peffectly logical name for telephony.
Ah. Learned something new. But as an audio guy, my point was that it would be 26k vs. 2600. Didn't realize that was a significant frequency in telephony.
26k is upper bound of hearing right?
Most people's hearing falls off around 19k. Teenagers and children can hear up to a possible 20k. 2600 was probably chosen because people can't hear it (the dog, cat, or ferret tho..)
-
@travisdh1 said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
@scottalanmiller & @RojoLoco it most certainly is not a strange name for a telephony project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2600_hertz
Yeah, not a name to get market share or branding wiht, but it is a peffectly logical name for telephony.
Ah. Learned something new. But as an audio guy, my point was that it would be 26k vs. 2600. Didn't realize that was a significant frequency in telephony.
26k is upper bound of hearing right?
Most people's hearing falls off around 19k. Teenagers and children can hear up to a possible 20k. 2600 was probably chosen because people can't hear it (the dog, cat, or ferret tho..)
WTF? Really?
-
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
That would be 2.6kHz
-
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
While I am not a fan of some of the things that Ward Mundy and his team does with the PIAF, one cannot deny their enthusiasm for FOSS telephony solutions over the years.
I don't really follow him much. It seems odd that he'd just throw in the towel, though.
-
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
That would be 2.6kHz
Hey, you're right! I can't math today, metric is hard. But a 2.6k wave would be solidly in the middle of the frequency range of a standard POTS phone.
-
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
That would be 2.6kHz
Gah! The things that get combobulated in my head.
-
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
@scottalanmiller & @RojoLoco it most certainly is not a strange name for a telephony project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2600_hertz
Yeah, not a name to get market share or branding wiht, but it is a peffectly logical name for telephony.
Ah. Learned something new. But as an audio guy, my point was that it would be 26k vs. 2600. Didn't realize that was a significant frequency in telephony.
The famous 2600 Magazine is named after that too. And the Atari 2600.
-
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@RojoLoco said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@scottalanmiller said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
2600Hz is the vendor here. Kazoo is the actual product name, which is better as 2600Hz is a bizarre name for a project.
2600Hz is a bizarre name for anything... should be 26kHz.
@scottalanmiller & @RojoLoco it most certainly is not a strange name for a telephony project.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2600_hertz
Yeah, not a name to get market share or branding with, but it is a perfectly logical name for telephony.
Even having known that I found it pretty weird. I knew immediately why they had chosen it but as a product name it's beyond odd. You can't even repeat it easily to someone. But it's not the project name, so makes more sense.
-
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@coliver said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@agarcia.wier said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
I think now is the time to invest in true open source alternative to Asterisk engine
How is the Asterisk engine not open source? It's released under the GPL meaning you can do whatever you want with the code base. FreePBX remains one of the, if not the, very best implementations of an Asterisk distribution that is also 100% open source. I'm just not sure where you're going with the last few threads about this.
Asterisk and FreePBX are open source, but Schmooze made changes regarding things such as third party module signing and requirements related to commercial modules that soured the mood with some in the FOSS telephony community.
The referenced article is old. As of this year you can sign your own modules without asking for anything from Sangoma. We've even written unit tests around this functionality so it can never break. We do listen to the community and have made changes over the last two years to how GPG functions. One of the biggest things we did was allowing users to sign any module locally without having to sign a CLA or a CSA with Sangoma, putting the power of open source (with GPG benefits) back into the hands of users.
-
@tm1000 said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@JaredBusch said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@coliver said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
@agarcia.wier said in 2600hz.org - Open Source VoIP:
I think now is the time to invest in true open source alternative to Asterisk engine
How is the Asterisk engine not open source? It's released under the GPL meaning you can do whatever you want with the code base. FreePBX remains one of the, if not the, very best implementations of an Asterisk distribution that is also 100% open source. I'm just not sure where you're going with the last few threads about this.
Asterisk and FreePBX are open source, but Schmooze made changes regarding things such as third party module signing and requirements related to commercial modules that soured the mood with some in the FOSS telephony community.
The referenced article is old. As of this year you can sign your own modules without asking for anything from Sangoma. We've even written unit tests around this functionality so it can never break. We do listen to the community and have made changes over the last two years to how GPG functions. One of the biggest things we did was allowing users to sign any module locally without having to sign a CLA or a CSA with Sangoma, putting the power of open source (with GPG benefits) back into the hands of users.
I do realize that it is an old article. But it is a fact that changes were made that upset the FOSS community. Personally, I could care less, I just want a solid working product.
