Re: Logitech Dives Into VoIP

On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Ivor Jones wrote:

>It's a requirement for any serious use, surely..? The ability to use VoIP
>from any available phone is basic, you shouldn't have to use a special one
>or have a PC on running specific software.

Poppycock!

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ed

"Ed" <a.@.invalid> wrote in message
news:44e456cc$0$6760$
> On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > It's a requirement for any serious use, surely..? The
> > ability to use VoIP from any available phone is basic,
> > you shouldn't have to use a special one or have a PC on
> > running specific software.
>
> Poppycock!

SoI have to have a PC on just in case someone wants to phone me..?

How do I integrate Skype into my PABX (6 outside lines, 25+ extensions)
then..?

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Ed" <a.@.invalid> wrote in message
> news:44e456cc$0$6760$
> > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Ivor Jones wrote:
> >
> > > It's a requirement for any serious use, surely..? The
> > > ability to use VoIP from any available phone is basic,
> > > you shouldn't have to use a special one or have a PC on
> > > running specific software.
> >
> > Poppycock!
>
> SoI have to have a PC on just in case someone wants to phone me..?
>
> How do I integrate Skype into my PABX (6 outside lines, 25+ extensions)
> then..?

But that isn't a rquirement for most people. Neither is it a
requirement for the service to be classed as a VOIP service.

Are you really such an arrogant ****wit that you're only able to
evaluate the value of a product or service in terms of your own narrow
requirements?

FWIW there's a D-link standalone Skype ATA due to launch in the next
couple of months. So that's your specific requirement catered for.

Out of curiosity, isn't your PABX actually an Asterisk box, i.e., a PC
that needs to be running for you to access your 6 lines and 25+
extensions?

"Andy Lord" <> wrote in message
news: oups.com
> Ivor Jones wrote:
> > "Ed" <a.@.invalid> wrote in message
> > news:44e456cc$0$6760$
> > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Ivor Jones wrote:
> > >
> > > > It's a requirement for any serious use, surely..?
> > > > The ability to use VoIP from any available phone is
> > > > basic, you shouldn't have to use a special one or
> > > > have a PC on running specific software.
> > >
> > > Poppycock!
> >
> > SoI have to have a PC on just in case someone wants to
> > phone me..?
> >
> > How do I integrate Skype into my PABX (6 outside lines,
> > 25+ extensions) then..?
>
> But that isn't a rquirement for most people. Neither is
> it a requirement for the service to be classed as a VOIP
> service.

It is a requirement that external devices be usable in order for it to be
of any use to me.

> Are you really such an arrogant ****wit that you're only
> able to evaluate the value of a product or service in
> terms of your own narrow requirements?

Ah, foul language. The last resort of those who know they've lost the
argument and probably the plot. Consider yourself killfiled, don't bother
to reply.

> FWIW there's a D-link standalone Skype ATA due to launch
> in the next couple of months. So that's your specific
> requirement catered for.
>
> Out of curiosity, isn't your PABX actually an Asterisk
> box, i.e., a PC that needs to be running for you to
> access your 6 lines and 25+ extensions?

No.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> "Andy Lord" <> wrote in message
> news: oups.com
> > Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > "Ed" <a.@.invalid> wrote in message
> > > news:44e456cc$0$6760$
> > > > On Wed, 16 Aug 2006, Ivor Jones wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > It's a requirement for any serious use, surely..?
> > > > > The ability to use VoIP from any available phone is
> > > > > basic, you shouldn't have to use a special one or
> > > > > have a PC on running specific software.
> > > >
> > > > Poppycock!
> > >
> > > SoI have to have a PC on just in case someone wants to
> > > phone me..?
> > >
> > > How do I integrate Skype into my PABX (6 outside lines,
> > > 25+ extensions) then..?
> >
> > But that isn't a rquirement for most people. Neither is
> > it a requirement for the service to be classed as a VOIP
> > service.
>
> It is a requirement that external devices be usable in order for it to be
> of any use to me.
>
> > Are you really such an arrogant ****wit that you're only
> > able to evaluate the value of a product or service in
> > terms of your own narrow requirements?
>
> Ah, foul language. The last resort of those who know they've lost the
> argument and probably the plot. Consider yourself killfiled, don't bother
> to reply.

Did he mean "La-la-la-la-la-la, I'm not listening."?

How does anyone put up with this arrogant, blinkered fool?

"Ivor Jones" <> wrote:

>It is a requirement that external devices be usable in order for it to be
>of any use to me.

and that's the problem, that simply because it isn't usable by you, you
feel it doesn't fall into the category of VoIP. FWIW, I don't care for
Skype, never used it, in fact, but acknowledge it has a place and
even though it currently doesn't fit in with *your* requirements
(and isn't something I need/want), it is extremely popular, and
what's more, *is* a VoIP facility. Stop digging that hole, Ivor.

"NoNeedToKnow" <> wrote in message
news:
> "Ivor Jones" <> wrote:
>
> > It is a requirement that external devices be usable in
> > order for it to be of any use to me.
>
> and that's the problem, that simply because it isn't
> usable by you, you feel it doesn't fall into the category
> of VoIP. FWIW, I don't care for Skype, never used it, in
> fact, but acknowledge it has a place and
> even though it currently doesn't fit in with *your*
> requirements (and isn't something I need/want), it is
> extremely popular, and
> what's more, *is* a VoIP facility. Stop digging that
> hole, Ivor.

I never said it wasn't VoIP. I said it wasn't *usable* VoIP.

Which it isn't to most sensible users.

Ivor

On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:37:09 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:

>I never said it wasn't VoIP. I said it wasn't *usable* VoIP.

It is usable to many people. Just because you have a flakey system
making it "unusable" to you that's your problem.

"Al" <.@_.invalid> wrote in message
news:
> On Fri, 18 Aug 2006 01:37:09 +0100, Ivor Jones wrote:
>
> > I never said it wasn't VoIP. I said it wasn't *usable*
> > VoIP.
>
> It is usable to many people. Just because you have a
> flakey system making it "unusable" to you that's your
> problem.

My system is far from flaky (not flakey). See my other reply.

Ivor

Ivor Jones wrote:
> I never said it wasn't VoIP. I said it wasn't *usable* VoIP.
>
> Which it isn't to most sensible users.

For Ivors specific definition of "sensible" and "usable".