New Feature: Minimum hardware requirements

[Jeroenvb3]

Hi,

I am not sure how easy it is to compare these as it obviously depends on the amount of data. But perhaps it would be possible to give an indication per product how much the minimum CPU and RAM requirements are.

Cheers

[meichthys]

That would be a nice metric for sure, but it would be difficult to compare apples to apples since many of these projects don't publish minimum requirements and have modules/add-ons or features that can be enabled/disabled.

I will keep this issue open and mull this over to see I can come up with a maintainable metric that is useful. One of my goals with this project is to balance maintainability and usefulness.

[rogerssam]

Perhaps in order to get a binary outcome (tick/cross) this could be listed as "Runs on a Raspberry Pi" assuming a Pi with some pre-defined specs (e.g. Pi 5 4Gb)? This might be a useful benchmark or "minimum standard". I.e. if something can run on a Rpi with, say 4Gb RAM, you'd expect it to be fine on something more powerful.
This is also commonly included in documentation of these packages, so shouldn't be too difficult to find.

[meichthys]

@rogerssam This is an interesting thought, but I don't think this would be quite as binary as we think. Some projects may suggest/require different pi versions and/or specs (i.e. coral accelerator, external storage vs SD card, etc). I'm not opposed to implementing this, but it may still be a bit tricky to make apple to apple comparisons and to find the required documentation on each project.

[rogerssam]

I probably should have started by thanking you for this extremely useful resource :)

I understand where you're coming from, but that's why you can choose an arbitrary line in the sand. In fact, you already have three categories of "Yes", "No" and "Maybe", so we could use them?

Since this is your project, you can choose that you will give anything that "will run (as confirmed in their documentation) on a Rpi 4 with 4GB RAM and no additional dependencies" (or whatever specs you think are appropriate) a tick, those that don't a cross, and those that are unclear or have extra dependencies a "Maybe" (🚧). I completely agree that trying to set all these things up on an Rpi would be difficult and time consuming, so that's why I suggest just basing this on the docs.

I'm happy to assist via a PR if that's helpful. I realise it probably won't be perfect, but I also think that it would be helpful to users.

On that note, it may be worth updating the heading/readme to state that this project is a resource provided as best effort, and no guarantees are made to it's accuracy or completeness"? That way if you get any heat for something being incomplete or incorrect, you just point to that and say "sorry, I tried my best".

[meichthys]

I'm glad you've found this resource useful!

I'm happy to assist via a PR if that's helpful. I realise it probably won't be perfect, but I also think that it would be helpful to users.

This would be great! Your comments seem reasonable to me. I'd be glad to review a pull request, but i do want to avoid having extra text or notes in the table, so we may be able to leverage the hover tool tip for any notes that the user may need to be aware of.

On that note, it may be worth updating the heading/readme to state that this project is a resource provided as best effort, and no guarantees are made to it's accuracy or completeness"? That way if you get any heat for something being incomplete or incorrect, you just point to that and say "sorry, I tried my best".

Very good idea.