|
|
|
|
| Intrinsic durability |
|
12 / 33 |
| Industrial solutions |
|
|
4 / 15 |
| Strategy |
|
|
4 / 9 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Sheet: Possible label: Silver
Stats:
Mandatory 9 / 9,
Recommended 0 / 17,
Free 4 / 48
|
|
|
Assenssment: Possible label: Silver
Stats:
Durability: 12 / 33,
Industrial: 4 / 15,
Strategy: 4 / 9
|
|
|
|
|
|
Age
|
|
More than 3 years
|
|
Stability
|
|
Stabilized software. Releases provide mainly new functionalities, even if bug fixes are also provided
|
|
History, known problems
|
|
No known major problem or crisis
|
|
Popularity (at its scale)
|
|
Detectable use on Internet (sourceforge, freshmeat, google…)
|
|
References
|
|
Often implemented for critical applications
|
|
Contributing community
|
|
No community or without real activity (forum, mailing lists…)
|
|
Books
|
|
No book about the software
|
|
Developers identification and turnover
|
|
4 to 7 developers, or more unidentified developers with important turnover
|
|
Activity on bugs
|
|
Detectable activity but without process clearly exposed, long reaction/resolution time
|
|
Activity on releases
|
|
Activity on production and development releases. Frequent minor releases (bug fixes)
|
|
Independence of developments
|
|
60% maximum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Training
|
|
No offer of training identified
|
|
Support
|
|
Multiple service providers with strong commitment (e.g: guaranteed resolution time)
|
|
Consulting
|
|
No offer of consulting service
|
|
Documentation
|
|
Documentation exists but shifted in time, is restricted to one language or is poorly detailed
|
|
Tools
|
|
Standard tools provided (for instance by a hosting forge) but poorly used
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roadmap
|
|
No published roadmap
|
|
Sponsorship
|
|
|
|
Strategic independence
|
|
Strong independence of the core team, legal entity holding rights, strong involvement in the standardization process
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
