Here is our current rating scale for the HCL:
1 = protocol based on reverse engineering
2 = based on fragments of publicly available protocol
3 = based on publicly available protocol
4 = vendor provided protocol
5 = vendor provided protocol and hardware
I was going to suggest a few changes to the ratings we have assigned (for
instance, not having a rating of "5" with an "experimental"
tag, and increasing the ratings of the Tripp Lite models which they tested
in-house against NUT), but I wonder if we should redefine the scale a bit. After
all, just because a vendor provides hardware or a protocol spec doesn't
automatically mean that the end-user experience will be satisfactory.
Any thoughts? At the very least, I would like to differentiate between
"should work" and "really does work", possibly replacing 4
and 5.
While we're on the topic of the HCL, I also think it might be handy to list
some of the more common vendors at the top of the "Manufacturer"
filter dropdown. Suggestions for criteria would be appreciated.
--
Charles Lepple
clepple at gmail
