TOra 1.3.21

Generic criteria from QSOS version 1.6

Intrinsic durability
- Maturity
  - Age
    less than 3 months
    if between 3 months and 3 years
    after 3 years
    Score : 2/2
  - Stability
    Unstable software with numerous releases or patches generating side effects
    Stabilized production release existing but old. Difficulties to stabilize development releases
    Stabilized software. Releases provide bug fixes corrections but mainly new functionalities
    Score : 2/2
  - History, known problems
    Software knows several problems which can be prohibitive
    No know major problem or crisis
    History of good management of crisis situations
    Score : 1/2
  - Fork probability, source of Forking
    Software is very likely to be forked in the future
    Software comes from a fork but has very few chances of being forked in the future
    Software has very little chance of being forked. It does not come from a fork either
    Score : 1/2
- Adoption
  - Popularity (related to: general public, niche, ...)
    Very few users identified
    Detectable use on Internet
    Numerous users, numerous references
    Score : 0/2
  - References
    None
    Few refences, non critical usages
    Often implemented for critical applications
    Score : 0/2
  - Contributing Community
    No community or without real activity (forum, mailing list, ...)
    Existing community with a notable activity
    Strong community: big activity on forums, numerous contributors and advocates
    Score : 1/2
  - books
    No book about the software
    Less than 5 books about the software are available
    More than 5 books about software are available, in several languages
    Score : 0/2
- Development leadership
  - Leading team
    1 to 2 individuals involved, not clearly identified
    Between 2 and 5 independent people
    More than 5 people
    Score : 1/2
  - Management style
    Complete dictatorship
    Enlightened despotism
    Council of architects with identified leader (e.g: KDE)
    Not evaluated
- Activity
  - Developers, identification, turnover
    Less than 3 developers, not clearly identified
    Between 4 and 7 developers, or more unidentified developers with important turnover
    More than 7 developers, very stable team
    Not evaluated
  - Activity on bugs
    Slow reactivity in forum or on mailing list, or nothing regarding bug fixes in releases note
    Detectable activity but without process clearly exposed, long reaction/resolution time
    Strong reactivity based on roles and tasks assignment
    Score : 1/2
  - Activity on functionalities
    No or few new functionalities
    Evolution of the product driven by the core team or by user's request without any clearly explained process
    Tool(s) to manage feature requests, strong interaction with roadmap
    Score : 1/2
  - Activity on releases
    Very weak activity on both production and development releases
    Activity on production and development releases. Frequent minor releases (bug fixes)
    Important activity with frequent minor releases (bugs fixes) and planned major releases relating to the roadmap forcast
    Score : 1/2
Industrialized solution
- Independence of developments
  - Developments realized at 100% by employees of a single company
  - 60% maximum
  - 20% maximum
  Score : 1/2
- Services
  - Training
    No offer of training identified
    Offer exists but is restricted geographically and to one language or is provided by a single contractor
    Rich offers provided by several contractors, in several languages and split into modules of gradual levels
    Score : 0/2
  - Support
    No offer of support except via public forums and mailing lists
    Offer exists but is provided by a single contractor without strong commitment quality of services
    Multiple service providers with strong commitment (e.g: guaranteed resolution time)
    Score : 0/2
  - Consulting
    No offer of consulting service
    Offer exists but is restricted geographically and to one language or is provided by a single contractor
    Consulting services provided by different contractors in several languages
    Score : 0/2
- Documentation
  - No user documentation
  - Documentation exists but shifted in time, is restricted to one language or is poorly detailed
  - Documentation always up to date, translated and possibly adapted to different target readers (end user, sysadmin, manager, ...)
  Score : 1/2
- Quality Assurance
  - Quality Assurance
    No QA process
    Identifies QA process but not much formalized and with no tool
    Automatic testing process included in code's life-cycle with publication of results
    Not evaluated
  - Tools
    No bug or feature request management tool
    Standard tools provided (for instance by a hosting forge) but poorly used
    Very active use of tools for roles/tasks allocation and progress monitoring
    Not evaluated
- Packaging
  - Source
    Software can't be installed from source without lot of work
    Installation from source is limited and depends on very strict conditions (OS, arch, lib, ...)
    Installation from source is easy
    Score : 0/2
  - Debian
    The software is not packaged for Debian
    A Debian package exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    The software is packaged in the distribution
    Score : 2/2
  - FreeBSD
    The software is not packaged for FreeBSD
    A port exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    A official port exists in FreeBSD
    Score : 0/2
  - HP-UX
    The software is not packaged for HP-UX
    A package exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    A stable package is provided for HP-UX
    Score : 0/2
  - MacOSX
    The software is not packaged for MacOSX
    A package exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    The software is packaged in the distribution
    Score : 0/2
  - Mandriva
    The software is not packaged for Mandriva
    A package exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    The software is packaged in the distribution
    Score : 2/2
  - NetBSD
    The software is not packaged for NetBSD
    A port exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    A official port exists in NetBSD
    Score : 0/2
  - OpenBSD
    The software is not packaged for OpenBSD
    A port exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    A official port exists in OpenBSD
    Score : 2/2
  - RedHat
    The software is not packaged for RedHat/Fedora
    A package exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    The software is packaged in the distribution
    Score : 2/2
  - Solaris
    The software is not packaged for Solaris
    A package exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support (e.g: SunFreeware.com )
    The software is supported by Sun for Solaris
    Score : 2/2
  - SuSE
    The software is not packaged for SuSE
    A package exists but it has important issues or it doesn't have official support
    The software is packaged in the distribution
    Score : 2/2
  - Windows
    The project can't be installed on Windows
    A package exists but it is limited or has important issues or just cover some specific Windows release (e.g: Windows2000 and WindowsXP)
    Windows is full supported and a package is provided
    All 32 bit Windows only
    Score : 2/2
Exploitability
- Ease of use, ergonomics
  - Difficult to use, requires an in depth knowledge of the software functionality
  - Austere and very technical ergonomics
  - GUI including help functions and elaborated ergonomics
  Score : 2/2
- Administration / Monitoring
  - No administrative or monitoring functionalities
  - Existing, functionalities but incomplete and or need improvement
  - Complete and easy-to-use administration and monitoring functionalities. Possible integration with external tools (e.g: SNMP, syslog, ...)
  Score : 1/2
Technical adaptability
- Modularity
  - Monolithic software
  - Presence of hight level modules allowing a first level of software adaptation
  - Modular conception, allowing easy adaptation of the software by selecting or creating modules
  Score : 0/2
- Code modification
  - Everything by hand
  - Recompilation possible but complex without any tools or documentation
  - Recompilation with tools (e.g: make, ANT, ...) and documentation provided
  Not evaluated
- Code extension
  - Any modification requires code recompilation
  - Architecture designed for static extension but requires recompilation
  - Principle of plugin, architecture designed for dynamic extension without recompilation
  Not evaluated
Strategy
- License
  - Permissiveness (only if user wants to become owner of code)
    Very strict license, like GPL
    Moderate permissive license located between both extremes (GPL and BSD) dual-licensing depending on the type of user (person, company, ...) or their activities
    Very permissive like BSD or Apache licenses
    Not evaluated
  - Protection against proprietary forks
    Very permissive like BSD or Apache licenses
    Moderate permissive license located between both extremes (GPL and BSD), dual-licensing depending on the type of user (person, company, ...) or their activies
    Very strict license, like GPL
    Not evaluated
- Copyright owners
  - Rights held by a few individuals or entities, making it easier to change the license
  - Rights held by numerous individuals owning the code in a homogeneous way, making relicense very difficult
  - Rights held by a legal entity in whom the community trusts (e.g: FSF or ASF)
  Not evaluated
- Modification of source code
  - No practical way to propose code modification
  - Tools provided to access and modify code (like CVS or SVN) but not really used to develop the software
  - The code modification process is well defined, exposed and respected, based on roles assignment
  Not evaluated
- Roadmap
  - No published roadmap
  - Existing roadmap without planning
  - Versionned roadmap, with planning and measure of delays
  Not evaluated
- Sponsor
  - Software has no sponsor, the core team is not paid
  - Software has an unique sponsor who might determine its strategy
  - Software is sponsored by industry
  Not evaluated
- Strategic independence
  - No detectable strategy or strong dependency on one unique actor(person, company,sponsor)
  - Strategic vision shared with several other free and open source projects but without strong commitment from copyrights owners
  - Strong independence of the code team, legal entity holding rights, strong involvement in the standardization process
  Not evaluated

TOra 1.3.21

Information

Generic section

Connection

Browsing functionalities

Query features

Other features