Generic criteria from QSOS version 1.6
Intrinsic durability
Maturity
less than 3 months
if between 3 months and 3 years
after 3 years
Unstable software with numerous releases or patches generating side effects
Stabilized production release existing but old. Difficulties to stabilize developpement releases
Stabilized software. Releases provide bug fixes corrections but mainly new functionalities
Software knows several problems which can be prohibitive
No know major problem or crisis
History of good management of crisis situations
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
Adoption by community and industry
Very few users identified
Detectable use on Internet
Numerous users, numerous references
None
Few refences, non critical usages
Often implemented for critical applications
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
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
Organisation and leadership of developments
1 to 2 individuals involved, not clearly identified
Between 2 and 5 independent people
More than 5 people
Complete dictatorship
Enlightened despotism
Council of architects with identified leader (e.g: KDE)
Activity of the project and around the software
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
Slow reactivity in forum or on mailing list, or nothing regarding bug fixes in releases note
Detectable activity but without process clearly exposed, loing reaction/resolution time
Strong reactivity based on roles and tasks assignment
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
Very weak activity on both production and development releases
Activity on production and developmenet releases. Frequent minor releases (bug fixes)
Important activity with frequent minor releases (bugs fixes) and planned major releases relating to the roadmap forcast
Industrialization level of the project
Developments realized at 100% by employees of a single company
60% maximum
20% maximum
Services offering
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 serveral languages and split into modules of gradual levels
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)
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 serveral languages
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, ...)
Quality assurance process
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
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
Packaging for various operating systems
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Exploitability level
Difficult to use, requires an in depth knowledge of the software functionality
Austere and very technical ergonomics
GUI including help functions and elaborated ergonomics
No administrative or monitoring functionalities
Existing, functionalities but uncomplete and or need improvement
Complete and easy-to-use administration and monitoring functionalities. Possible integration with external tools (e.g: SNMP, syslog, ...)
Technical adaptability
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
Everything by hand
Recompilation possible but complex without any tools or documentation
Recompilation with tools (e.g: make, ANT, ...) and documentation provided
Any modification requires code recompilation
Architecture designed for static extension but requires recompilation
Principle of plugin, architecture designed for dynamic extension without recompilation
Project's strategy
License
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
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
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)
No pratical 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
No published roadmap
Existing roadmap without planning
Versionned roadmap, with planning and measure of delays
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
No detectable strategy or strong dependency on one unique actor(person, company,sponsor)
Strategical 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
y
Using no standard specification
Specification portal is not indentified
Using specification JSR-168
It is entirely standards-based and supports the JSR-168 portlet specification, which allows you to easily plug-in standards-compliant portlets to meet your specific portal needs. It suports too JSR-170 (Content Repository)
Not supporting any technologies
likely supporting any technologies but not identified or don't work correctly
support numerous technologies like Struts,JSF,Webdav
The technologies supported are Struts, JSF(1.2 version), WebDAV(supported by JBoss2.0 and 2.4)
no protocol supported
protocol HTTP/HTTPs doesn't work correctly or supports only thin heavy (client lourd???)
administration via thin light is performing
no web application administration
web application administration don't work correctly
Three specific portlets about administration
Administration via commandline impossible
Administration via commandline is difficult or isn't performing
Administration via command line work very well
Do JBoss Portal come with script or can be managed from a console?
No user's management
User's management doesn't work correctly
User's management is performing
Auto recording user management, user's creation by admin, information's update
No site structure's management
site structure's management doesn't work correctly
Site structure's management by Portal Object Management and by XML scripts
Assignment of themes and pages on the portal from Portal Object Management, reference of themes and layouts by XML scripts
No rules'management
Rules'management doesn't work correctly
Possibility to manage rules
No marketing animation
Marketing animation can be customized
Marketing animation integrated
No technical administration
Technical administration is partial.Especially for JBoss AS
Technical administration performing
No administration's delegation
administration's delegation doesn't work correctly
administration's delegation is performing
No utilisation's statistics
No utilisation's statistics, but any statistics by Webalizer or AW AWStats can be supplied
utilisation's statistics integrated
Don't generate any monitoring file
monitoring file generation doesn't work correctly
generate partially JMX support including information of deployment view and its administration
No mailing support
standard mailing support doesn't work correctly
SMTP and SMTPS integrated
No safety
Safety is not strong
support any modules(SSL/TLS, IIS...)
complicated installation
installation with a little assistance by website only
assisted installation by manual and website, possibility to unzip a copy (don't need to install)
impossible portal deployment
portal deployment is partial
portal deployment is complete
simplified deployment on a cluster is impossible
deployment on a cluster is possible but not simplified
simplified deployment on a cluster is performing
impossible to modify administration language
possibility to add more administration language
administration languages exist and can be updated
no contents management
contents management doesn't work correctly
contents management integrated, based on JackRabbit(Apache), implementation of JSR-170
contents management integrated with contents versioning support, without conntents validation circuit
no contents previsualisation function
contents previsualisation function don't work correctly
contents previsualisation function except portal context disponible: WYSIWYG contents
no contents previsualisation function
contents previsualisation function in the portal context is partial
contents previsualisation function in the portal context is integrated
no separation of contents and form
separation of contents and form is partial
possibility to separate contents and form
no search engine integrated
search engine doesn't work correctly
search engine is performing
don't support LDAP authentification
LDAP authentification doesn't work correctly
LDAP authentification is performing and bring a real advantage for the tools
No NTLM authentification
NTLM authentification is partial or doesn't work correctly
NTLM authentification is performing
No X.509 authentification
X.509 authentification doesn't work correctly
X.509 authentification is performing and bring a real advantage for the tools
No Kerberos authentification
Kerberos authentification is partial or doesn't work correctly
Kerberos authentification is performing and brings a real advantage for the tools
No JAAS authentification
JAAS authentification is partial or doesn't work correctly
JAAS authentification is performing and brings a real advantage for the tools
No LDAP storage
LDAP storage is partial or doesn't work correctly
LDAP storage is performing and brings a real advantage for the tools
No SGBD storage
SGBD storage is partial or doesn't work corectly
SGBD storage is performing and brings a real advantage for the tools
No IDE support
IDE support doesn't work correctly
Numerous IDE supports are supported
No development split autorized
Development split is partial or doesn't work correctly
Possibility to sub-contract portlets