2005/12/11, Chad Smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > On 12/11/05, Henrik Sundberg <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > To me this sounds like: > > Just a few volunteers have contributed to OOo. > > That is not many eyeballs. > > Therefore "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is not valid for > > OOo. > > Therefore "with enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow" is something > > between wildly misleading and utter crap. > > > > I'm slightly confused by what you've said here. I think that "eyeballs" > refers to people looking at the program. OOo has *plenty* of eyeballs. > According to the Stats page, Over 53 million sets of eyeballs. > http://stats.openoffice.org/index.html
If an eyeball should be used to make a bug shallow, it must (most often) be directed towards the code. I therefor agree with the way Andrew counts eyeballs (or pairs of them). <snip> YA = Yet Another? /$ (Hi Chad, hmm me? Schizo enough not to understand each other ;-) --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
