Difference between revisions of "Rating System"

From coreboot
Jump to: navigation, search
(New page: == Rating System == At the coreboot summit in Denver we talked about a rating system for supported boards. The idea is to make it clear which boards are most highly recommended because th...)
 
Line 12: Line 12:
 
* vendor participation in the coreboot project
 
* vendor participation in the coreboot project
 
* ...
 
* ...
 +
 +
As we list boards, we should also make it clear if a board is actually available for purchase. A board might get a high rating, but be unavailable for purchase, in which case it should be carefully marked as such. Board availability will change over a board's lifespan.
 +
 +
Should we provide a separate rating for coreboot support (i.e. the stuff above) and how good our code actually is?

Revision as of 17:10, 17 April 2008

Rating System

At the coreboot summit in Denver we talked about a rating system for supported boards. The idea is to make it clear which boards are most highly recommended because the vendors cooperate.

To get to such a rating for a particular board, we should establish a list of categories with an associated score.

Adding up the scores for the major components on a board (cpu, chipsets, mainboard, others?) would give us a rating that results in a number of 'stars'.

Some ideas for those categories:

  • availability of documentation (nothing/NDA restricted == 0, NDA but free to publish code == 3, online with click through == 7, public URL == 10)
  • vendor participation in the coreboot project
  • ...

As we list boards, we should also make it clear if a board is actually available for purchase. A board might get a high rating, but be unavailable for purchase, in which case it should be carefully marked as such. Board availability will change over a board's lifespan.

Should we provide a separate rating for coreboot support (i.e. the stuff above) and how good our code actually is?