On 11-07-14 04:30 PM, Chad Davis wrote: > I believe that it depends on the use case. Reading a CD I would call > core; burning a CD I would call extra. But, maybe this example is too > easy, if it always works. (Or maybe I say that because my Mac can't > boot from USB).
I'm precisely saying that even reading a CD I wouldn't consider such a core functionality. Maybe it's just me, but as I said before I just don't use the CD drive all that much and I consider a working and bootable USB to be more important. However it's been established many times that I'm not an ideal target audience for this sort of thing, so if there's consensus that CD reading is to be considered core, I'll concede :) > In the case of CPU and Memory, for example, one can't work unless they > both work. I would say that BIOS+CPU+Memory together are a use case > for booting. A more interesting use case might be e.g. that the CPU > frequency scaling works correctly when switched to battery power. This is a nice example. CPU scaling is a CPU functionality, which we consider core, but is it really so important? If it doesn't "scale" will the machine fry or cease to work, or just consume more battery than it would otherwise? > Some components, like a camera, might have only one function, but > things like suspend depend on multiple hardware components. That's > already listed as a functional test in the survey. Might it be more > intuitive to express the functionality of a machine more in terms of > what a user wants to do with it? (boots, suspends, burns CDs, dims > backlight). I wouldn't really understand how to interpret a statement Maybe each one of these functionalities can be expressed with a test case? then we can group test cases by core component: test case - component boots - (fuzzy, I'd say CPU) suspends - suspend/resume burns CDs - CD dims backlight - power management frequency scaling - power management The "dims backlight" is a very good example, because it requires both ACPI support (to actually set the brightness level) and hotkey support (to invoke the ACPI stuff). It's possible to set ACPI stuff via a command line, but it's a terrible use case for a "friendly" system. However, I'd be content if brightness could be set via an easy-to-access indicator or applet. So it's a matter of a) having the functionality and b) getting to it. > like "the memory works". I realize that I don't (yet) know enough > details about the underlying tests, but I'm just asking about how the "The memory works" would be something like "the OS recognizes all the memory as installed in the system" and "the memory test doesn't throw any errors". Otherwise, the memory is unreliable, and a system where there are consistent memory failures would not be so friendly :( > results will be categorized and presented. Do you think this would be > more Friendly? > > Chad > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2011 at 16:08, Daniel Manrique > <[email protected]> wrote: >> On 11-07-14 09:15 AM, Ara Pulido wrote: >>> Hello all! >>> >>> It is time to start thinking about what should be a core component and >>> what should go to the extra components list. >>> >>> Remember that if any core component fails, that submission will get a >>> rating of zero. If all core components are working, the submission will >>> get a minimum of 3 out of 5. The 2 extra point will be gained by >>> working extra components. >>> >>> This means that it is OK to leave an important (but not vital) component >>> out of the core components list, as it will mean that in case of failure >>> the system will never get a rating of 5 out of 5. >>> >>> I did an initial selection based on my own thoughts as an example: >>> >>> https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuFriendly/Process/Components >>> >>> but I would like to know what you guys think of what should be a core >>> component and what should be an extra component. >>> >>> I have set up a survey to get feedback on this: >>> >>> http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/PSS2H6Q >>> >>> Your participation is more than welcome! >> >> Well I answered the survey but I wanted to comment on optical drives on >> portable computers. First, it seems to me like they're disappearing! and >> second, even if present, I find they get less and less use each time. I >> maybe use mine once a month and my previous computer's was actually not >> working anymore and guess what? it didn't really matter to me. I always >> found a workaround for it. >> >> Of course the expectation is that if "it's there, it should work", but >> it's the same case as other extra components: if it's not working, it >> only counts against the two "extra stars" but not about 3-star "it's >> usable" status. >> >> It would be interesting to know how common is it for optical drives to >> not work with Ubuntu, as I think the involved interfaces are pretty >> stable by now and it'd be extremely hard for an optical drive to >> actually NOT work. >> >> So I wonder whether optical drives should even be demoted to extra >> components for portable computers. >> >>> Thanks! >>> Ara. >>> >>> >> >> >> -- >> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-friendly-squad >> Post to : [email protected] >> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-friendly-squad >> More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp >> > -- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-friendly-squad Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~ubuntu-friendly-squad More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
