Slashdot Mirror


Mozilla RC3 Released

pjdepasq was one of many reader to submit the news that "Those fine folks at Mozilla.org rolled out RC3 on Thursday I noted. They say it's the last planned release before 1.0, which I'm guessing is right around the corner. As a fan of the project (I'm using it on 3 platforms!), kudos to all of you!" Here are the release notes.

38 of 492 comments (clear)

  1. Netscape 7 by mbrix · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the upcoming release of Mozilla 1.0, Netscape 7 will be based on that. I really hope reviewers, developers and users will take a new view on Netscape so Netscape can gain some of the lost market share. I'm tired of seeing websites which simply don't care about Netscape/Mozilla support...

    And don't start saying "hey, I don't need Netscape, I want plain Mozilla!". You're right, but Netscape is for (l)users. If Netscape 7 has success, you'll also have more luck surfing the internet with your Mozilla browser.

    By the way, MozillaZine is also a great source of information for Mozilla-fans.

    1. Re:Netscape 7 by HanzoSan · · Score: 3, Informative

      AOL is using gecko. AOL 7 was switched to gecko, thats also why netscape 6.5 was renamed 7.0

      --
      If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
    2. Re:Netscape 7 by bunratty · · Score: 5, Informative
      Well, I need netscape anyway because some sites won't let you install a plugin for mozilla but only netscape or explorer.
      The Mozilla PluginDoc project was created to help Mozilla users with installing their plugins. Go to that website to get instructions on how to install your favorite plug-in without needing Netscape.
      --
      What a fool believes, he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.
    3. Re:Netscape 7 by aengblom · · Score: 3, Insightful

      (Above is incorrect). AOL 7 is NOT using gecko. AOL is testing gecko with a version of AOL 7, but the 2x million AOL members are still using IE.

      --


      So close and yet so far from the world's perfect ID number
    4. Re:Netscape 7 by mattbee · · Score: 3, Funny

      AOL is using gecko. AOL 7 was switched to gecko, thats also why netscape 6.5 was renamed 7.0

      And surely not because IE is 'only' at major version 6, and a version 7 browser has got to be better than a version 6 browser. I'm sure nobody in Netscape's marketing department would stoop to making such a facile point :-)

      --
      Matthew @ Bytemark Hosting
    5. Re:Netscape 7 by Khalid · · Score: 3, Informative

      AOL didn't start Mozilla. The Mozilla project has been started mainly thanks to Jamie Zawinsky Eric Raymond efforts, prior to the AOL take of Netscape.

    6. Re:Netscape 7 by cybermage · · Score: 3, Informative
      "You might be able to save yourself a step in there somewhere with a symlink. "

      This person is using windows.

      Windows makes symlinking of folders very obscure, but not impossible. (If anyone knows a faster way to do this under Windows 9x, feel free to follow up):
      1. Using Windows Explorer, locate the item or folder to which you want to link.
      2. Right click the item and select "Send to" then "Desktop." This will create a shortcut to the item and drop it on the desktop.
      3. Go to the desktop and right click the new shortcut. Select "Cut" from the list.
      4. Return to Windows Explorer and locate the folder in which you'd like to place the symlink.
      5. Paste the shortcut into the folder and rename it.


      Follow these steps, and you have a fully functional symlink to a folder. It's way easier with normal files. Seems Microsoft never imagined putting folder shortcuts anywhere but the desktop and start menu. But, the desktop and start menu are just file system folders at the end of the day.
    7. Re:Netscape 7 by doug363 · · Score: 3, Informative
      As has been said before, that's a shortcut, which does have to be interpreted on a program-by-program basis. Microsoft says that programs should follow them, but you can't type a complete path with a shortcut in it, and many programs don't support them as they should. By the way, you can also make a shortcut from one folder to another by right-dragging the target folder to the source folder in explorer, and choosing "create shortcut here" from the menu that appears. Then rename the shortcut if you want.

      On systems with NTFS v5 and above (i.e. Windows 2000 and XP), there is a symlink capability -- it's called a "reparse point". Microsoft calls them "junction points" when they're a symlink to a directory, and "volume mount points" when they're used to do something similar to Unix mounting (or the old DOS "join" command).

      They work quite well at the command line, but many programs written for Windows don't support them because they assume that a file can only have one name, for example. Or they don't correctly handle symlink loops, where a symlink in a directory refers to one of it's own parent directories. They're not very well documented or supported under Windows 2000 - you have to download some utilities from Microsoft or System Internals or someone - but they're better documented and supported under Windows XP from what I've heard.

  2. Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Nailer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    It uses native widgets. I.e., unlike a lot of other apps - eg, Microsoft's own Office XP - Mozilla actually uses Windows XP's `styles'. If you get rid of the GreyModern / Netscape 4 themes and replace them with the IE theme, Mozilla actually looks and acts like a rather pleasant and featurefilled native looking web browser for Win32. Without the security holes of IE, plus tabbing, popup control, and lots of other goodies IE doesn't have.

    1. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by satanami69 · · Score: 5, Informative

      Edit->Preferences
      Click on Advanced
      Click in Enable Quick Launch.
      Click ok.
      Now it'll load just as fast.

      --
      I really hate Dan Patrick.
    2. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by Webz · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You are only partially correct. Mozilla does not and probably never will (in the near future) use native widgets for any OS because of (I think) XUL. Mozilla has its own rendering engine, controlled by JavaScript and style sheets. This allows for mucho customization, by web developers and users alike. It does not, however, earn any brownie points in usability.

      You are, however, correct in that Mozilla on XP inherits the visual style of XP's interface (anything Luna or Classic). But that's all. Mozilla does not inherit the accessibility features in XP. Should XP suddenly support a new input device for navigating sheets (or similar), Mozilla wouldn't have any part of it. The Mozilla team has had many a debate on how to mimic the keyboard shortcuts in Windows since none of the interface is native. For the majority of Windows users, however technical ye are, this is a moot point, because it just looks the same and does its job. This argument is most apparent in Mac OS X, an environment associated with pretty colors and UI guidelines provided by Apple. Many, many OS X users have not used Mozilla because it looks and functions like nothing on OS X. And of course, Linux users either don't care or don't have enough time/energy to choose a standard interface and then care. =)

      Mozilla, in all of its open source and standards-compliant glory, will always be a second-rate browser if not native to each platform of operation. Don't get me wrong, I love Mozilla to no end... I'd just like a native version. (See Internet Explorer, OmniWeb, Lynx, etc.)

      PS - I don't recall any version of Office using Windows's UI controls... Office always shipped with some new, bleeding edge control of its own, often to be reincarnated into the controls of the next version of Windows. Even Office XP, of all things, has no correlation to native Windows XP controls.

    3. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by gnugnugnu · · Score: 3, Informative

      > I love Mozilla to no end... I'd just like a native version. (See Internet Explorer, OmniWeb, Lynx, etc

      I read that sentence it is a bit misleading, if you want a "native mozilla" rather than just a native browser check out the following gecko based browsers (gecko, the mozilla rendering engine).

      For windows Try K-meleon
      k-meleon.sf.net
      windows look and feel, gecko rendering engine

      For Mac see Fizilla: or, for the boring, "Mozilla for MacOS X"
      http://www.mozilla.org/ports/fizzilla/

      This page is quite informative
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/distr os.html
      http://www.mozilla.org/projects/embedding /examples / ndex.html

    4. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by astrosmash · · Score: 4, Insightful
      That only solves half the problem. So the UI is native, but the buttons / input fields / combo boxes etc on web pages are still not.
      Buttons, input fields, and combo boxes on web pages can never be native widgets, for two reasons:
      • You can't apply CSS to native widgets. (border colors and sizes, onHover and onFocus styles, etc)
      • You can't control the z-order; native widgets will always be on top of all rendered content.
      That's why mozilla and IE render their own controls, and I'm sure Opera will some day, too. (I've never used OmniWeb, so I can't say anything about that)
      --
      ENDUT! HOCH HECH!
    5. Re:Something interesting about Moz on Windows XP by scrytch · · Score: 3, Informative

      XUL is merely a nifty declarative way to construct GUIs. There's java implementations of it as well, and there's really no reason XUL couldn't be used to build native GUIs. The fact that Mozilla's XUL currently only targets the gecko engine is simply a consequence of the implementation -- it should be quite possible to make it render into native widgets and have them control mozilla "from the outside" through some sort of COM/XPCOM adaptor. But they really have no reason to -- end users are getting used to applications like mp3 players and the like that look and feel nothing at all close to "standard" -- witness RealPlayer, or even MS's latest windows media player on non-XP systems, for example.

      --
      I've finally had it: until slashdot gets article moderation, I am not coming back.
  3. Any ideas as to when... by gusnz · · Score: 3, Interesting

    ...the DHTML performance will increase?

    The current series has a bad bug in DHTML animation performance that I've noticed -- performance regressed in the 0.97 -> 0.98 release, and ever since then rapid animations etc. have often not rendered correctly.

    Read through the bugzilla entry there -- apparently some experimental builds have 450% increased JavaScript animation speed, some test are linked to try it out yourself. Does anyone more in touch with the Moz project internals than I have an idea as to when this will be integrated with the main branch of the code -- I heard 1.01 was the target a while back?

    I say this as Moz is looking more and more likely to turn up on user's desktops as part of AOL/Compuserve/whatever as they escape from MS's browser licensing terms. Bugs in release candidates are fine (that's what they're there for) but if mass-market NS7 has shortfalls like these, it could spell trouble for JavaScript developers like me.

    Anyway, more power to the Mozilla project! It's good to see a truly free, standards compliant, cross-platform browser out there. Looking back a year, I wonder what it'll be like in a year's time...

  4. Re:Mac OS X version... by SimonKeogh · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Bloated? A ten meg download that includes browser, mail, news, irc client? And I don't know what machine you are using, but Moz is as snappy as anything else on my computer. I'm sorry, but nothing about this excellent peice of software seems bloated or slow to me. This is by far the best web browser I've ever used IMHO.

  5. Heres the post everyone should read first by HanzoSan · · Score: 5, Informative



    Basically, this is what posts you'll see.

    "IE is faster, Mozilla cant beat IE"

    Lets respond to this post right now. OF course IE is faster and always will be faster because its build into the damn OS. MSN msger is faster than ICQ and AIM, anything made by Microsoft should be the fastest considering Microsoft has advantages in terms of knowing the source code of the entire OS.


    "IE has won, its too late, Mozilla team should just give up"

    Isnt this exactly what the IE team should have done back in 1998 when Netscape 4 was winning 70-30 in terms of percentages?


    "Opera's done it all first, Mozilla is copying"

    Of course Mozilla and Netscape will copy Opera the same way Opera and IE copied Netscapes Bookmark system.

    "Opera is better than Mozilla and IE because its faster"

    Are you using Windows? Perhaps you should try linux on your 486, its faster. What? You arent using a 486? Well stop complaining about speed, if Mozilla is slow, its because you are too slow to upgrade

    "Mozilla/Netscape cant render page X"

    Maybe it WOULD render page X if you stopped using IE and wrote that same msg to the site owner

    "Mozilla is bloated and slow"

    Try Kmeleon, Galeon, or if both those are slow try lynx.

    "AOL isnt supporting Mozilla, why wont they put gecko into their AOL package?"

    They have. AOL 7.0 gecko beta. Also try Netscape 7


    This ends all arguements you people will have before they begin, the rest of the arguements will be about bugs in mozilla, when will 1.0 release, why mozilla isnt availble for your obscure OS, or why the mozilla team took 4 years to build the best browser.


    --
    If you use Linux, please help development of Autopac
  6. Re:Solution by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 3, Informative

    copy & paste? Too hard... :-)

    Drag the link onto the tab-bar.

  7. Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sentime by galaga79 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    This is not intended as flamebait by any means, but does anyone know what sort of browser share Mozilla/Netscape have? I have been following and pushing both browsers for the past year, encouraging others to try them out, but when checking the browser statistics for my website they don't have any entry at all. Right now the breakdown for my site is about 97% Internet Explorer 5+ and 3% Netscape 4, which is a real shame. Does anyone out there have any more promising browser usuage stats?

    It is also interesting guaging people response to Mozilla/Netscape on sites other than Slashdot. It seems like there is real anti-Netscape sentiment out there, an example being the response to Netscape 7 at deviantart where there is loads of "Netscape sucks" one liners. I could be wrong on this, but it seems ever since Netscape 4 a lot of people seem unprepared to give Netscape a second chance. Perhaps it is "cool" to hate Netscape because they are owned by AOL, I don't know

    Anyway that aside, Mozilla is great is most definitely stable enough for public consumption as the last few releases haven't crashed on me at all. As soon as I get home I'll download RC3.

  8. Re:Some Questions I can't find Answers to... by sconest · · Score: 3, Informative
    1) What version of Mozilla is Netscape 7.0pr1 based on?

    As the userAgent string says : "Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux i686; en-US; rv:1.0rc2) Gecko/20020513 Netscape/7.0b1"
    Thus on the 1.0 branch.

    2) Is Mozilla ever likely to support the auto-update function that Netscape has just included? (Being a sys-admin of 50-odd M$ boxes makes it a nightmare contemplating to update them all with the latest release)

    It is in the prefs but I doubt it will happen since Mozilla releases are not targeted towards end-users.

    3) I know the party for 1.0 is June 12th but what is the projected/updated release date?

    The usual response: "when it's ready" :)
    But I think it will be ready for that date (pure speculation)

    --
    Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
  9. Their planning to release with a big bug still in! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Yesturday, as rc3 was released, bug ID 82534 (http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=82534 copy and paste - they dont allow links from slashdot) was changed from Mozilla 1.0 to Mozilla 1.0.1

    To summarise, this bug freezes any keyboard input to mozilla under some circumstances - so its kinda major

    It only happens on windows, but is very easily reproducable (there are many examples of how to produce it in the bug thread)

    Two friends of mine tried using mozilla on windows, and both encountered this bug and were stumpped

    I cant believe they are planning to release 1.0 with this bug still in since it will for sure put a lot of people off mozilla for a long time - what with it being a point zero...

  10. Re:Mozilla/Netscape usage & anti-Netscape sent by krmt · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With all the IE holes, I've been sensing more and more of an anti-IE sentiment. In fact the only browser that I've never heard a truly disparaging remark about (although I have heard honest testaments to its shortcomings) is Opera.

    And when I show people Mozilla with disabling pop-ups and tabbed browsing, anti-IE sentiment grows where it never existed before.

    --

    "I may not have morals, but I have standards."

  11. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by riggwelter · · Score: 3, Informative

    RC3 still has zero support for anti-aliased fonts.

    Not true - the packages for Red Hat that are linked to by mozilla.org don't have it enabled by default. It's easy to enable it by editing the unix.js file in the defaults/pref directory of the Mozilla install tree, and setting these prefs:
    pref("font.FreeType2.enable", true);
    pref(font.freetype2.shared-library", "libfreetype.so.6");
    // or whatever your freetype library is

    Other packages, such as those built for SuSE (get them from ftp.suse.com/pub/projects/mozilla) have these enabled by default.

    --
    Listening for the sound of the coming rain...
  12. Mozilla and acceptance by theolein · · Score: 5, Informative

    I have just read one page of trolls and flamebait and the usual anti Mozilla responses such as it is bloated, slow, non CSS compliant, buggy, no one uses it, etc.

    Consider this:
    1. It is the *one* browser that is nearly 100% standards compliant. IE's non-standard standards may be de facto standards in many cases, but those pages on the web that do in fact use those are very small in number and are usually on websites which are not heavily frequented, Microsoft's own pages being the exception to prove the rule.
    2.If you use Quick Launch with Mozilla, it loads part of itself into memory and then starts up about as fast as IE does.
    3.It is the *one* browser that renders pages in the same manner across all supported platforms. IE does not do this for example between the mac and Windows. Opera is one version behind on the Mac and it remains to be seen when they get to 6 there.
    4.It is, in my experince, more stable than IE on Win and Mac. I experience fewer crashes with the latest RC's than I do with IE on Win and mac.
    5.It is definitely more secure than IE. It has it's security bugs, but in no way as many as IE does.
    6.You can have an influence in the way this browser is developed. Do you have the same influence with IE or even Opera for that matter?
    If Netscape dies, Mozilla will carry on.
    7.For those who say that the browser share market belongs to IE, I say let's look again in a year. Netscape used to own the market and lost it because of Microsoft's tactics and a poor product that was less standards compliant than IE. This could change again.
    8.For those who troll that Mozilla is only at 1.0RC3 and in one year has only gotten here from a 0.9 version, perhaps you should realise that the Mozilla developers are not in a competition for version numbers with IE. Netscape plays this game and has released version 7.

    All that said, you're free to use whichever browser you like best on your platform.

    1. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by killmenow · · Score: 4, Informative

      1. It is the *one* browser that is nearly 100% standards compliant.
      For everything you say but this, I agree. However, this would indicate Opera is very nearly 100% standards compliant as well.

      I don't know if we should concern ourselves with a debate over which is closer to 100% compliant. It suffices to say there are at least *two* browsers that are nearly 100% standards compliant...and IE isn't one of them.
    2. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by Hard_Code · · Score: 3, Insightful

      My main complaint is that all of your points could have been accomplished much sooner, and with less bloat (Mozilla uses 17MB on my machine at fresh startup...I know memory is cheap, but *dayamn*, that will never fly on older machines...), if they had not decided to reinvent the world, and come up with some new weirdo GUI component and layout system. Mozilla is a major accomplishment, but I fear it could have done so much more if they followed the KISS rule and gotten some form of final usable product out the door long ago.

      --

      It's 10 PM. Do you know if you're un-American?
    3. Re:Mozilla and acceptance by frankie · · Score: 4, Interesting
      [opera.com] would indicate Opera is very nearly 100% standards compliant

      You should read that page more closely. For example:

      We are currently working on DOM [...] Modifying the document structure is not yet possible (ie. you cannot add or remove HTML elements). [...] Opera does not support W3C DOM Core [other than a dozen specific methods]
  13. Could Mozilla beat IE if Netscape can't? by Plug · · Score: 3, Insightful

    People who started using the Internet before IE don't mind Netscape and would go back for a previous version. Most of the world see IE bundled with Windows, compared Netscape 4.77 with IE5 and say "IE is better", and don't recognize that Netscape could possibly change.

    Add one part Mozilla and shake.

    The sort of people who would use IE over Netscape because they had a bad experience with Netscape around 4.77 will be impressed with Mozilla, and they don't even need to know that it is based on Netscape! I installed Netscape 7 preview yesterday, which for most people may as well have been a Mozilla skin. Additions: IM, which closes when the browser closes and isn't important in a business environment, and no menu option to remove all those AOL popups.

    We don't need to wait for Mozilla 1.0 so Netscape 7 can come out and compete with IE; when Moz hits 1.0, we should be pitting Mozilla against IE. It doesn't feel signifigantly different, but there are improvements that grow on you quickly - tabbed browsing, being able to selectively disable Javascript - which make people stand up and watch. Netscape will have as many ads and links to AOL in it as IE has to Micrsoft. Mozilla is infinitely more pure! And when the last few bugs are ironed out, I'll look forward to seeing what new innovations the crew have in store. (Remember, as far as most people are concerned, all that changed between IE4 and IE6 was the loading logo and the widgets if you're using XP.)

    That, and maybe Mozilla could end up being the application that make people think "Wow, that open source community aren't so bad after all."

  14. better than explorer by hopey · · Score: 3, Interesting

    With pinball theme it looks much nicer than with too big classic theme. Also finally I can switch javascript support and pop-ups on and off by one mouse click with this preference toolbar tool. Tabbed browsing is also great feature. New rc3 starts up and loads pages as fast as explorer. With all these additional features and equal performance with windows native browser I can finally honestly recommend using mozilla.

    hopey

  15. My problem with Mozilla on Mac OS X by jawtheshark · · Score: 3, Interesting
    I have no problem with it's bloatedness. The rendering surely feels better than IE 5.5 for OS X. However I have one *big* issue will all alternative browsers for Mac OS X.
    You know the OS X has this nice little feature calles "Location" (Apple -> Location), which allows you to switch on the fly from one network to another. Now I use my personal iBook as well as on my home network (with Firewall/NAT) as on the corporate network (with proxy). The Location "applet", allows you to specify the proxies to use (or not to use) when on a certain network. Nifty, eh? Well I love it.

    However there is only ONE browser that fetches this information and that is Internet Explorer. Why? Why? Why? Opera doesn't do it, Mozilla doesn't check it nor Chimera does. I consider all these browsers superior to IE 5.5 You always have to set the proxy information manually! I don't want to do this. Why do I have to change the preferences of the browser when I start it up on another network?

    I can understand this under Linux (no central place to get proxies), or under Windows because it has no nifty "location" feature (a central place is there, if the INTERNEL.CPL applet counts).
    Sorry, but *this* is my biggest issue with Non-IE browsers on Mac. (Posting from Moz RC2 on Mac OS X...btw)

    --
    Ahhh...the great dumpster continuum. Many a free computer will be found there. -- sowth (748135)
  16. Re:Wrong by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    http://www.mozilla.org/projects/fonts/unix/enablin g_truetype.html

  17. Re:Wow.. Still [] AA font support!! by anno1a · · Score: 3, Informative

    As stated somewhere else it's already included. Maybe you should set up your linux and read some howtos before complaining. FUI I've run with anti-aliased fonts on my mozilla since 0.9.9, when I found out it was possible. One reason I could think of, why mozilla doesn't support aa fonts on your system is that you need the damned true-type fonts. That's what did the trick for me. Why doesn't mozilla supply these? Because it isn't their responsibillity. In short: RTFM

    --
    ------- I fumbled my registration and I now must suffer
  18. Wrong! (Was: Bug #22274) by dannyspanner · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read this document to find out why the spaces appear and what you can/should do to fix it. Nobody said standards compliance wouldn't hurt.

  19. Re:YAY MOZILLA! by selmer · · Score: 4, Informative
    Does the problem disappear when you add:

    user_pref("dom.disable_open_click_delay", 1000);

    From: the customizing mozilla-guide:

    When the dom.disable_open_click_delay pref is set to a non-zero number, window.open will fail when called more than that number of milliseconds after a mouse click.

  20. Re:One thing I'd like to know... by sconest · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was fixed in RC2 (and netscape 6.2.3)

    --
    Guvf vf abg n EBG zrffntr
  21. The coders are getting a bit punch though. by frankie · · Score: 3, Interesting

    At least a few Mozilla programmers apparently are losing a whole lot of sleep trying to get 1.0final out the door. Take a look at bug 110112 comment 62 (paste the link to avoid the slashdot ban):

    http://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1101 12 #c62

    Synopsis: there are various crashes and freezes when using the "ask me before loading an image" option. In a bad imitation of Solomon's judgement, they decided to stop the crashes by eliminating the option.

  22. In other news today.... by filmcritic · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Mozilla Project today announced Release Candidate 28, in otherwords version 0.9999999999999999999999999999. The open source community has embraced this project fully and are doing everything in their power to get it released on time.

    When asked about the timetable for 1.0 release, they stated "We are definately making progress. Look for it soon! Internet Explorer XXXV will go down in flames!!!".

    Mozilla is the open source "clone" of Netscape. Netscape, if you remember, was a pioneer in the early days of WWW browsing. After being bought by AOL-Time Warner, some hoped that the huge cash flow would help the floundering former giant. AOL declared bankruptcy in 2010, bringing down all companies underneath it, including Netscape.

    All in all, Mozilla really does look like a promising piece of software if the Mozilla team could actually release version 1.0. Just wishful thinking on my part...

  23. Re:Wow.. Still no AA font support!! by IvyMike · · Score: 4, Funny

    Wow! You manage to bring this up every time they release a "bug-fix-only, no-new-features, release candidate"! And you know it! And you complain anyway, every time! And use exclamation marks, too!

    I shall look forward to seeing your same post again when Mozilla 1.0PR1 comes out, when Mozilla 1.0PR2 comes out, and Mozilla 1.0 Final comes out, too.

    When they said "you're not getting a pony for Christmas. Maybe for Easter," they meant it. Does this suck? Maybe. Do you have to whine about it every time? Apparently.

    Cheers.