If this trend increases we may get to the point that there will be jobs posted that nobody qualifies for except those who already work at the company.
That's long been the case. Well, for one you can't disregard the importance of institutional knowledge to software development: a programmer who's been on the job for a number of years and knows a lot about any existing code as well as relevant business practices is more valuable than a newcomer who may look better on paper. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that employers are in a buyer's market and they feel they should be able to find a person who is an exact fit for their requirements. And they can... on paper.
The problem with employers and HR departments who do that is that they're eliminating the possibility of acquiring a great programmer who may not have a precise skillset, but will pick them up in short order. Given how fast this industry changes, a willingness and ability to quickly adopt new languages and methodologies is a far more important attribute. Furthermore, a programmer may have other useful items in his background that aren't directly related to coding, but could be beneficial to a particular employer. You'll never know unless you ask, and if you discard an applicant simply because he doesn't fit some arbitrary profile you may be losing out.
Ultimately, it's best not to get too specific when looking for new hires, but that means more work for the HR people. They want to fill checkboxes and pigeonhole every applicant, and not worry in the least about anything not on their little lists. That costs a lot of companies a lot of good employees.
Customers and bosses really want desktop-like apps
It's the same old argument about the thin client vs. a thick client. It never ends. "Why can't I have a mail program that looks and works just like my favorite email client but in my browser?"
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use. Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.
A very fine-sounding sentiment indeed, but would you really want to use an application or system designed for mentally-challenged individuals? An experienced user-interface designer does realize that it is not that easy to accommodate a wide spectrum of computer literacy and/or native intelligence on the part of users, without making said system too hard for the mentally challenged, or offensive and irritating to the more advanced. You really end up with two (or more!) interfaces if you really want to do that. Fact is, to some degree people just have to learn what they're doing around computers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Life is a learning experience: we learn how to tie our shoelaces, look both ways before crossing the street and then move on to more complex tasks. Expecting software developers to write programs starting with the assumption that the user is a moron is just, well... moronic. Even stupid people learn to drive cars and function in society, they can learn how to handle modern applications too.
It can be roughly compared to what's going on in the automotive repair industry. You used to see all the parts involved and how they interact.
I'll give you another example. Back when the Apple ][ came out, everything was socketed, all one hundred and thirty-odd ICs. I was a service tech then, and my job was to take a malfunctioning motherboard and track the problem down the the specific parts that were bad, pry them out and replace them. A little tedious, perhaps, but the repair bill was usually mostly labor and about.29c worth of parts. It did take some knowledge of digital electronics and the Apple's hardware architecture to solve problems.
Then the original IBMPC came out in 1981, and the game changed completely. IBM decided that a knowledgeable technician should not be a requirement for servicing their equipment. Consequently, all components were soldered on to the motherboard (including the RAM that came with the machine, there were sockets for add-on memory.) The term "shotgun service" was applicable, since all you were doing was replacing one of a very few assemblies... power supply, motherboard, floppy drive or video card. No chip-level knowledge required.
congratulations. you picked the wrong framework then.
More likely his boss picked the wrong framework. That's how it usually goes, because the criteria used are often less about the best software tool for a particular case, than some other concern (price, it's what the boss already "knows", it's what the company is already using, etc.) And, the truth is that sometimes the boss is right. "Wrong" is a relative term, because programmers have a relatively narrow perspective on a product's life cycle and don't always have the big picture.
Back when I had Comcastaway a year or so ago, their tech support was largely Indian. It was definitely a crapshoot ("To not be getting angry with me, sir! I am but trying to help you!" but if you called back a few times you'd eventually get someone with a half a clue. Now, at one point I was paying an extra couple bucks a month for a second IP (I didn't want to run my VoIP box through my main router.) Then I upgraded my service to the next tier, and all of a sudden my phones stopped working. I reset everything, and then the phones worked fine but nothing else did. Turned out they'd dropped provisioning for my second IP. So I call up about it, and was told that I needed a service call. It went kinda like this:
"No, I don't," I told her, "It's a provisioning problem."
"Well, I wouldn't know about that. We'll need to send a tech to make sure your equipment is working."
"No, it's working fine. Tell you what, send me over to provisioning."
"Oh, we're not allowed to do that. I can't call them either."
At that point I gave up.
"Whatever. Send the tech."
So a pair of Comcast technicians shows up, and asked me what the problem was. They were pretty sharp, I have to admit: the Internet boys were generally good, it was the Comcast Digital Voice techs that really needed some more training, but that's another story. Anyway, I explained the problem, and the lead tech blinked and asked, "Why did you ask for a service call? That's a provisioning issue." Duh.
So he calls up provisioning and this African-American woman answered and just wouldn't shut up for two seconds after he explained the problem, I was amazed that she found time to breathe. "He can just avoid the problem by simply plugging his VoIP box directly into his router. That would save him the monthly charges {blah blah blah, and furthermore, more blah} does the customer know that he doesn't need a second IP?". The guy looks around my shop and said, "Yes. I think he does. In any event HE JUST WANTS WHAT HE'S PAYING FOR." So the lady says, "Okay, all fixed." We restarted everything, it appeared to work, they left, and an hour later my second IP disappeared again. Argh. Still, all in all they did provide a reasonable service (a little expensive, but it was fast and fairly reliable) but they lost me when they started screwing around with torrents. Hands off my goddamn pipe, Mr. Robertson.
Now I'm on AT&T U-Verse, and so far I've been happy. I have some interference issues that I discovered are due to noise on my power line, of all things (yeah, now I'm in power company Hell, but I can't blame AT&T for that.) I'm on the 18 mbit/sec tier, am getting 22 and I'm getting 2 mbit/sec upload. No complaints with AT&T so far. Ultimately, it just depends upon where you are. I'm in a broadband-competitive area, so they have to work for it. I feel sorry for people I know that only get Internet access from a single outfit: unless it's a fairly small, well-run operation they usually get crappy service. If it's a Comcast or a Verizon, and they don't have to compete for your dollars, they usually don't bother.
Not hard to figure out why AT&T was so heavily regulated back when its Ma Bell days. I'm spite of what our laissez faire friends would have us believe, sometimes you do need regulation.
If they pay for the product, you retain rights to the source code. If they pay for the work it is called work-for-hire. If they pay you for the work, they have a right to the source code. There might be some copyright issues if you want to use the code elsewhere, but they still have a right to the source code. You were paid to create said work for them in exchange for money.
Which is why we need to eliminate licensing and have two modes for work
That's silly. The reason you have those "5,000 lines of legalese bullshit" is so that each side has their expectations met. Your simplified model doesn't by any means accommodate every possible way that two or more organizations might wish to do business. I was a contract developer for a long time, and only once did I have a customer that wanted access to the source code. In that particular case, it was a dimensional analysis system that was being used to QC a spline shaft used on the Space Shuttle. And they only wanted it so that if NASA asked they could say they had it: they had no desire to modify it. The rest were perfectly happy to have me retain ownership and distribution rights and (most importantly) responsibility for support. All they wanted was to have the code written properly to their specifications. See, not everyone is as interested in control as you seem to think, because with that control comes additional responsibilities that they may not want. There are other considerations, and your model would have given my customers automatic rights they neither needed nor wanted, and would have rejected if offered.
Unfortunately that's not particularly strange at all. Most coders don't own their code either, the company they work for does. Same is true for songwriters, screenwriters, etc.
Different scenarios. Creators own copyright the moment they create something (talking about the U.S. here) When you get a full-time position, you assign all rights to your work in your employment contact (well, you do if your employer has a competent attorney.)
Strangely enough, book publishing is one area where by convention the author usually DOESN'T own the copyright, but the person who paid for it (publisher) does!
I don't think that's actually true. The author (in the U.S. anyway) has copyright the moment he sets his ideas to paper. The author usually retains copyright, but by contract the publisher has sole distribution rights. At least, that's what I read on the Internet. If I ever get a book published I'll let you know how it works out.
Why do people think they own code just because they've paid for it
yeah, I am used to paying for an item, and software happens to be an item (especially when it is delivered on a CD)
Well, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
If you're paying for custom code (I believe it's called a "work for hire") you'd best make sure that your contract (you did have a written contract, didn't you?) transfers ownership and copyright of the code to you. If you didn't do that, odds are the developer still owns it. As it happens, I was a contract developer for a decade and a half, and I kept ownership of all my code. I never had a problem: oddly enough my customers (all large corporate types for the most part) were old hands at the custom software game, and knew precisely where they stood.
Now, in a couple of cases I put the source code into escrow. That is, my lawyer kept a copy of the latest source with instructions to release it to specific customers upon certain conditions. Generally, that meant that the customer had the right to purchase the code from my estate if I were hit by a truck or otherwise incapacitated. That kept everyone happy: I didn't have to worry about supporting unauthorized mods to my code or anything proprietary getting out, and they knew that they could obtain the code if anything untoward happened to me.
There's a difference between owning all rights to a software product, and just licensing it for use. Just ask Microsoft. Or did you think that Microsoft Office DVD came with full source and redistribution rights?
Also humans are nothing but animals, maybe your sky wizard superstition says otherwise but we are all just mammals.
My, aren't we the presumptuous one. As it happens I'm an atheist so you can stick that "sky wizard" shit right up your ass where it belongs. Yes, we are all just animals, but we have to put our own kind first (believe me, your average "lower animal" won't make that distinction. You're just food at best, a potential threat at worst.) My point is that we have a lot of people in this country who aren't capable of making the proper distinction between human beings and animals. Some of them are just militant fruitcakes like PETA... some are lawmakers.
And I disagree with your further presumption that a significant number of people who abuse animals in some way automatically go on to harm people. It's that kind of judgmental, factless attitude that has caused a lot of problems with public policy in recent decades. You know, like the unfounded assumption that anyone who smokes pot is an addict that will invariably progress to harder drugs.
Do you know what it takes to get on the list? Do you understand that some drunk guy can get on because he got drunk, went into an alley and pissed against the wall? Yeah, you merciless son of a bitch -- they nail him for indecent exposure. Right, now he can't get (or loses) any job involving contact with kids or anywhere in a lot of professions.
The only way to control a nation of free men is to turn them into criminals. And that's exactly what is happening. It's not just punishment-lust (although that is most certainly a factor) it's the desire for power. Our Founders tried to codify limits to that power in the highest law of our land. Unfortunately, zealots and sociopaths (and the two are not mutually-exclusive) are doing an end-run around those limits.
Good bye pharmaceutical and any other animal based research in California! No more hunting. Oh, and when a heard of deer needs to be thinned out, does that mean they're going to ask the deer to take birth control and leave the state? Will they offer relocation to the deer? Just wanna know.
Yeah, it's pretty messed up all right. A friend of mine who lived in California for many years recently suggested that I move there. It's when I read articles like this that I realize why I never did. Of course, this is nothing new. I remember reading about how LA's government doesn't allow the use of the word "slave" in technical documentation. This is just an extension of that same mental illness, and I hope it doesn't spread Eastward.
the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?
.
I think they already exist, it's just that most of us aren't aware of them, or at least don't have access to their contents (the TSA's "no-fly" list being a prime example.)
There will always be a stigma associated to certain types of crimes. Animal abuse is one of them. Long after they serve their far too short sentences they will still get to live with what they've done... and we'll get to share the knowledge of their past with them.
On the other hand, when you attempt to elevate animals to having the same status and rights in our society as human beings... you have a problem. A person who abuses an animal is not on a par with a person who abuses another human, and should not be treated in the same way. You have to think this through a little. Animals are what they are, and the net effect of trying to make lower animals into virtual human beings is to degrade and demean our humanity. We treat corporations as if they were people, and look how well that's worked out for us.
The last time real gave away something free of charge it came with a load of spyware (in fact it was the begining of the the wave of crap we're can see today)
Yes. I wouldn't install anything from that schlock outfit, free or otherwise.
Slashdot Mirror
If this trend increases we may get to the point that there will be jobs posted that nobody qualifies for except those who already work at the company.
That's long been the case. Well, for one you can't disregard the importance of institutional knowledge to software development: a programmer who's been on the job for a number of years and knows a lot about any existing code as well as relevant business practices is more valuable than a newcomer who may look better on paper. Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that employers are in a buyer's market and they feel they should be able to find a person who is an exact fit for their requirements. And they can ... on paper.
The problem with employers and HR departments who do that is that they're eliminating the possibility of acquiring a great programmer who may not have a precise skillset, but will pick them up in short order. Given how fast this industry changes, a willingness and ability to quickly adopt new languages and methodologies is a far more important attribute. Furthermore, a programmer may have other useful items in his background that aren't directly related to coding, but could be beneficial to a particular employer. You'll never know unless you ask, and if you discard an applicant simply because he doesn't fit some arbitrary profile you may be losing out.
Ultimately, it's best not to get too specific when looking for new hires, but that means more work for the HR people. They want to fill checkboxes and pigeonhole every applicant, and not worry in the least about anything not on their little lists. That costs a lot of companies a lot of good employees.
Customers and bosses really want desktop-like apps
It's the same old argument about the thin client vs. a thick client. It never ends. "Why can't I have a mail program that looks and works just like my favorite email client but in my browser?"
through certain areas (New York City for one),
Just out of curiosity, why would a shipper exclude New York city?
As such they should be as easy and accessible for an average person to use. Ideally they would require no training and be usable by even extremely mentally challenged individuals.
A very fine-sounding sentiment indeed, but would you really want to use an application or system designed for mentally-challenged individuals? An experienced user-interface designer does realize that it is not that easy to accommodate a wide spectrum of computer literacy and/or native intelligence on the part of users, without making said system too hard for the mentally challenged, or offensive and irritating to the more advanced. You really end up with two (or more!) interfaces if you really want to do that. Fact is, to some degree people just have to learn what they're doing around computers, and there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Life is a learning experience: we learn how to tie our shoelaces, look both ways before crossing the street and then move on to more complex tasks. Expecting software developers to write programs starting with the assumption that the user is a moron is just, well ... moronic. Even stupid people learn to drive cars and function in society, they can learn how to handle modern applications too.
It can be roughly compared to what's going on in the automotive repair industry. You used to see all the parts involved and how they interact.
I'll give you another example. Back when the Apple ][ came out, everything was socketed, all one hundred and thirty-odd ICs. I was a service tech then, and my job was to take a malfunctioning motherboard and track the problem down the the specific parts that were bad, pry them out and replace them. A little tedious, perhaps, but the repair bill was usually mostly labor and about .29c worth of parts. It did take some knowledge of digital electronics and the Apple's hardware architecture to solve problems.
... power supply, motherboard, floppy drive or video card. No chip-level knowledge required.
Then the original IBMPC came out in 1981, and the game changed completely. IBM decided that a knowledgeable technician should not be a requirement for servicing their equipment. Consequently, all components were soldered on to the motherboard (including the RAM that came with the machine, there were sockets for add-on memory.) The term "shotgun service" was applicable, since all you were doing was replacing one of a very few assemblies
Now programming is more about assembling all the previously developed tools to produce a useful result
How does it go? "If builders built buildings the way programmer write programs, the first woodpecker to come along would knock down civilization."
More than a little truth in that remark. The further we get away from understanding our tools, the more likely we are to use them improperly.
Do you mean the cretans that pass for programmers ...
What do you have against people from Crete?
... I'll leave peacefully.
Okay, okay
congratulations. you picked the wrong framework then.
More likely his boss picked the wrong framework. That's how it usually goes, because the criteria used are often less about the best software tool for a particular case, than some other concern (price, it's what the boss already "knows", it's what the company is already using, etc.) And, the truth is that sometimes the boss is right. "Wrong" is a relative term, because programmers have a relatively narrow perspective on a product's life cycle and don't always have the big picture.
Would you like to avail the Comcast?
Back when I had Comcastaway a year or so ago, their tech support was largely Indian. It was definitely a crapshoot ("To not be getting angry with me, sir! I am but trying to help you!" but if you called back a few times you'd eventually get someone with a half a clue. Now, at one point I was paying an extra couple bucks a month for a second IP (I didn't want to run my VoIP box through my main router.) Then I upgraded my service to the next tier, and all of a sudden my phones stopped working. I reset everything, and then the phones worked fine but nothing else did. Turned out they'd dropped provisioning for my second IP. So I call up about it, and was told that I needed a service call. It went kinda like this:
"No, I don't," I told her, "It's a provisioning problem."
"Well, I wouldn't know about that. We'll need to send a tech to make sure your equipment is working."
"No, it's working fine. Tell you what, send me over to provisioning."
"Oh, we're not allowed to do that. I can't call them either."
At that point I gave up.
"Whatever. Send the tech."
So a pair of Comcast technicians shows up, and asked me what the problem was. They were pretty sharp, I have to admit: the Internet boys were generally good, it was the Comcast Digital Voice techs that really needed some more training, but that's another story. Anyway, I explained the problem, and the lead tech blinked and asked, "Why did you ask for a service call? That's a provisioning issue." Duh.
So he calls up provisioning and this African-American woman answered and just wouldn't shut up for two seconds after he explained the problem, I was amazed that she found time to breathe. "He can just avoid the problem by simply plugging his VoIP box directly into his router. That would save him the monthly charges {blah blah blah, and furthermore, more blah} does the customer know that he doesn't need a second IP?". The guy looks around my shop and said, "Yes. I think he does. In any event HE JUST WANTS WHAT HE'S PAYING FOR." So the lady says, "Okay, all fixed." We restarted everything, it appeared to work, they left, and an hour later my second IP disappeared again. Argh. Still, all in all they did provide a reasonable service (a little expensive, but it was fast and fairly reliable) but they lost me when they started screwing around with torrents. Hands off my goddamn pipe, Mr. Robertson.
Now I'm on AT&T U-Verse, and so far I've been happy. I have some interference issues that I discovered are due to noise on my power line, of all things (yeah, now I'm in power company Hell, but I can't blame AT&T for that.) I'm on the 18 mbit/sec tier, am getting 22 and I'm getting 2 mbit/sec upload. No complaints with AT&T so far. Ultimately, it just depends upon where you are. I'm in a broadband-competitive area, so they have to work for it. I feel sorry for people I know that only get Internet access from a single outfit: unless it's a fairly small, well-run operation they usually get crappy service. If it's a Comcast or a Verizon, and they don't have to compete for your dollars, they usually don't bother.
Not hard to figure out why AT&T was so heavily regulated back when its Ma Bell days. I'm spite of what our laissez faire friends would have us believe, sometimes you do need regulation.
If they pay for the product, you retain rights to the source code. If they pay for the work it is called work-for-hire. If they pay you for the work, they have a right to the source code. There might be some copyright issues if you want to use the code elsewhere, but they still have a right to the source code. You were paid to create said work for them in exchange for money.
That's just not true.
Which is why we need to eliminate licensing and have two modes for work
That's silly. The reason you have those "5,000 lines of legalese bullshit" is so that each side has their expectations met. Your simplified model doesn't by any means accommodate every possible way that two or more organizations might wish to do business. I was a contract developer for a long time, and only once did I have a customer that wanted access to the source code. In that particular case, it was a dimensional analysis system that was being used to QC a spline shaft used on the Space Shuttle. And they only wanted it so that if NASA asked they could say they had it: they had no desire to modify it. The rest were perfectly happy to have me retain ownership and distribution rights and (most importantly) responsibility for support. All they wanted was to have the code written properly to their specifications. See, not everyone is as interested in control as you seem to think, because with that control comes additional responsibilities that they may not want. There are other considerations, and your model would have given my customers automatic rights they neither needed nor wanted, and would have rejected if offered.
then you may now be experiencing something natural--the customer feels they own the code.
They can feel whatever they want. I don't care. What matters is what they signed.
Unfortunately that's not particularly strange at all. Most coders don't own their code either, the company they work for does. Same is true for songwriters, screenwriters, etc.
Different scenarios. Creators own copyright the moment they create something (talking about the U.S. here) When you get a full-time position, you assign all rights to your work in your employment contact (well, you do if your employer has a competent attorney.)
Strangely enough, book publishing is one area where by convention the author usually DOESN'T own the copyright, but the person who paid for it (publisher) does!
I don't think that's actually true. The author (in the U.S. anyway) has copyright the moment he sets his ideas to paper. The author usually retains copyright, but by contract the publisher has sole distribution rights. At least, that's what I read on the Internet. If I ever get a book published I'll let you know how it works out.
yeah, I am used to paying for an item, and software happens to be an item (especially when it is delivered on a CD)
Well, ignorance of the law is not an excuse.
If you're paying for custom code (I believe it's called a "work for hire") you'd best make sure that your contract (you did have a written contract, didn't you?) transfers ownership and copyright of the code to you. If you didn't do that, odds are the developer still owns it. As it happens, I was a contract developer for a decade and a half, and I kept ownership of all my code. I never had a problem: oddly enough my customers (all large corporate types for the most part) were old hands at the custom software game, and knew precisely where they stood.
Now, in a couple of cases I put the source code into escrow. That is, my lawyer kept a copy of the latest source with instructions to release it to specific customers upon certain conditions. Generally, that meant that the customer had the right to purchase the code from my estate if I were hit by a truck or otherwise incapacitated. That kept everyone happy: I didn't have to worry about supporting unauthorized mods to my code or anything proprietary getting out, and they knew that they could obtain the code if anything untoward happened to me.
There's a difference between owning all rights to a software product, and just licensing it for use. Just ask Microsoft. Or did you think that Microsoft Office DVD came with full source and redistribution rights?
Also humans are nothing but animals, maybe your sky wizard superstition says otherwise but we are all just mammals.
My, aren't we the presumptuous one. As it happens I'm an atheist so you can stick that "sky wizard" shit right up your ass where it belongs. Yes, we are all just animals, but we have to put our own kind first (believe me, your average "lower animal" won't make that distinction. You're just food at best, a potential threat at worst.) My point is that we have a lot of people in this country who aren't capable of making the proper distinction between human beings and animals. Some of them are just militant fruitcakes like PETA ... some are lawmakers.
And I disagree with your further presumption that a significant number of people who abuse animals in some way automatically go on to harm people. It's that kind of judgmental, factless attitude that has caused a lot of problems with public policy in recent decades. You know, like the unfounded assumption that anyone who smokes pot is an addict that will invariably progress to harder drugs.
I see how it is... you are one of those species-ist human supremists.
Now go add your name to the registry of animal haters :)
Okay, right after I finish my quarter-pounder.
Do you know what it takes to get on the list? Do you understand that some drunk guy can get on because he got drunk, went into an alley and pissed against the wall? Yeah, you merciless son of a bitch -- they nail him for indecent exposure. Right, now he can't get (or loses) any job involving contact with kids or anywhere in a lot of professions.
The only way to control a nation of free men is to turn them into criminals. And that's exactly what is happening. It's not just punishment-lust (although that is most certainly a factor) it's the desire for power. Our Founders tried to codify limits to that power in the highest law of our land. Unfortunately, zealots and sociopaths (and the two are not mutually-exclusive) are doing an end-run around those limits.
Good bye pharmaceutical and any other animal based research in California! No more hunting. Oh, and when a heard of deer needs to be thinned out, does that mean they're going to ask the deer to take birth control and leave the state? Will they offer relocation to the deer? Just wanna know.
Yeah, it's pretty messed up all right. A friend of mine who lived in California for many years recently suggested that I move there. It's when I read articles like this that I realize why I never did. Of course, this is nothing new. I remember reading about how LA's government doesn't allow the use of the word "slave" in technical documentation. This is just an extension of that same mental illness, and I hope it doesn't spread Eastward.
the real problem is what when 1000's of different "registries" exist?
. I think they already exist, it's just that most of us aren't aware of them, or at least don't have access to their contents (the TSA's "no-fly" list being a prime example.)
There will always be a stigma associated to certain types of crimes. Animal abuse is one of them. Long after they serve their far too short sentences they will still get to live with what they've done ... and we'll get to share the knowledge of their past with them.
On the other hand, when you attempt to elevate animals to having the same status and rights in our society as human beings ... you have a problem. A person who abuses an animal is not on a par with a person who abuses another human, and should not be treated in the same way. You have to think this through a little. Animals are what they are, and the net effect of trying to make lower animals into virtual human beings is to degrade and demean our humanity. We treat corporations as if they were people, and look how well that's worked out for us.
IANALE, but I believe that copyright law covers duplication, not necessarily distribution.
No doubt that's why it's called "copyright" not "dupliright".
It's not a war if only one side is putting up a fight.
SlySoft is screwed because RealNetwork isn't going to "sell" RealDVD anymore, they will most likely give it away for free.
I doubt it matters. Slysoft's stuff is truly slick, and I don't think that Real offers anything like AnyDVD's shim driver for Windows.
The last time real gave away something free of charge it came with a load of spyware (in fact it was the begining of the the wave of crap we're can see today)
Yes. I wouldn't install anything from that schlock outfit, free or otherwise.