Release Candidate
Ah... good ol' RCs. Whenever I see a Release Candidate version of software, I always remember the rabid Slashdot comments raking Microsoft over the coals for having the audacity to give us Vista RC2 and how poor they were for having to release a SECOND Release Candidate. They whine about how the RC1 had bugs that needed to be fixed... Boo-hoo. "A release candidate should be a candidate for release, not a beta, waah!" I made a post about it a while ago, back before I bothered to include links to the articles I was referring to, but it didn't take long searching Slashdot to find what I was referring to. Be sure to read the comments, of course. What brought that post on back then? Well, it was the fact that, on one side, Slashdot readers were blasting Microsoft about RC2 being the result of their inept programming, where, the very same day, October 9th, 2006, there was not a single similar comment to describe Firefox 2 RC2, even though, according to Slashdot's own logic and reasoning, Firefox should have been equally "inept" at coding when they released an RC that wasn't quite ready for release.
So what brought this post on NOW? Firefox THREE is Release Candidate 2 now, and, like I said, any time I see a piece of software hitting RC2, I remember all the morons who thought Microsoft should be the exception. I suppose it should be viewed as a compliment and that they really do think Microsoft is competent enough to get software right on the first go. Personally, I never did have a problem with RC1, and maybe you didn't either, but! Maybe you did... See, that's the wonderful world of computers for you. When you build something in a controlled environment and then release it to the public, the plethora of different configurations of PCs will literally compromise all stability you've planned on. Coding for PCs is hard work, unlike Apples that all come off the same expensive assembly-line with the same manufacture of parts. (But I abstain.)
Point is, Microsoft was somehow inept because they had to release Vista RC2, but the RC2 of Firefox was allowed without a hitch. I realize this really isn't as important as pointing this kind of stuff out in politics, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy, and I like to have documented instances of such things when I point out why the open-source community is comprised mostly of arrogant crap-heads who give themselves one set of rules and everyone else another. (Case in point: Open-source CAN have RC2. Closed-source can NOT have RC2.) Although I have to honest... There is ONE comment on the Firefox 3 RC2 article that complains about how there are bugs that Mozilla hasn't bothered to fix for YEARS. We all know that comment is absolutely correct (if you don't believe it, look as the link the comment provides). I'll put my money on someone driving by and leaving the typical "it's open-source, so fix it if you think it should be". Well, I'm sorry, but it doesn't necessarily take a programming genius to find a bug, now, does it? I, personally, can't program modern languages worth squat, but I am quite adept at discovering bugs (and exploits in games that I have been known for taking advantage of). I can't fix it, but I can show someone so THEY can fix it.
Anyway, there you are!