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@gmail _______________________________________________ Nut-upsdev mailing list Nut-upsdev@lists.alioth.debian.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nut-upsdev
