Slashdot Mirror
SCO Identifies EV1Servers as Linux Licensee
jasonhamilton writes "EV1Servers.net has been identified as a Linux licensee, giving them the dubious title of being the first dedicated hosting company to have a licence agreement with SCO. Rather than 'eliminating uncertainty from our clients' hosting infrastructure', as Robert Marsh (CEO of EV1Servers) claims, some users of EV1 appear to be somewhat upset."
Being the most gullibile company ever incorporated.
/dev/null
You can pick up your award at
Linux Users Identify EV1Servers as Dumbasses
Bored? Why not join a decent mess
SCO uses its bullying tactics to get some money after all...shouldnt the anti-extortion laws be in effect in this instance...maybe that is just wishful thinking!
Post apocalyptic gaming goodness
We should boycott EV1Servers for contributing to the SCO legal fund.
1f u c4n r34d th1s u r34lly n33d t0 g37 l41d
I was just about to rent a server from them. good rates. but now I don't know
ooh yea. FP
Timothy
More SCO news? I reckon they're getting desperate.
As a customer of Ev1 I'm definetly upset.
So far I have no complaints against EV1, but a measure like this is only going to hurt its customers - we're going to be the ones who end up paying for the SCO license.
I always told my friends that I'd never buy a SCO license - what do I tell them now.
[ Monday is a terrible way to spend one seventh of your life. ]
Forum already slashdotted!
EveryDNS. Use it. It works.
AC's need not reply
...at the fact that they suddenly can no longer access the support forums to complain of this affront to legal decency.
If this was a legit transaction their stock price would be rocketing - however I just checked at the stock is langishing and even the volume is moderate. I suspect more details will emerge on this one and we will find out this like the "partner" announcement last week.
In the meantime anybody hosting at this company? time to move away folks. I do not want to host my business at a company who lacks basic judgement.
paying $699 per license
699x12000=$13,980,000.
So they're paying almost 14 million dollars for nothing. Nice.
When anger rises, think of the consequences.
Confucius (551 BC - 479 BC)
Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/www/html/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40
There seems to have been a slight problem with the database. Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.
You want me to what? Well if you insist...
That happened well over twelve seconds ago, where have you been???
Professional Wild-Eyed Visionary
"SCO - Playing The Chump Card As Long As We Can"
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
goto Rackshack.net and you'll get the 'official' word (and a redirect to EV1Servers.net)
For some reason there seems to be a lot of confusion about this.
So far SCO has been basically saying "You need to buy a license from us to use Linux commercially." Now a well known company actually BUYS the license.
What does this do for their case? Are they going to come forward and say "See, EV1 bought a license. Now YOU need to buy a license!" or what? Really, what does this do for them legally? Anything. I sure hope not.
Nobodies Prefect
Tidbits for Techs Technology Blog
I can't understand why the company wasn't linked to ...
...that they released the company name which contributed to the assaults on Linux's name. I know now which hosting company not to choose.
In fact they should release all names of companies licensing Linux from SCO. Better yet, the names of their CEOs, their email addresses and business types. It will show the quality of business decisions going on within those places and will decrease certainity of investors who know about the whole SCO fiasco.
"Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you." -Nim Chimpsky
What comes into the minds of these folks?
Even if SCO is right (sofar I doubt it, but I ain't no judge) it is not like they can get mountains of cash from every single user/operator.
Just plod along and ignore SCO, the same way the phone company or electric company does when you think that they owe *you* money. Even when it is time to pay up the damages are rarely cripling.
Eve Fairbanks says I drive a hybrid!LOL
This is the funniest thing I've seen this week. A slashdotting described as "a slight problem with the database"
/var/www/html/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40
Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in
There seems to have been a slight problem with the database.
Please try again by pressing the refresh button in your browser.
An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can
also contact if the problem persists.
We apologise for any inconvenience.
There is much cruelty in the universe, John.
Yeah, we seem to have the tour map.
Will EV1 get their money back plus interest when SCO is shown to have made fraudulent claims? Or am I just wrong about that?
They included the statement, "at our customers request." You can bet they'll be passing the cost of the license on to their customers.
j.
Rather than 'eliminating uncertainty from our clients' hosting infrastructure', as Robert Marsh (CEO of EV1Servers) claims, some users of EV1 appear to be somewhat upset.... that their host is going to get slashdotted."
--You will rephrase your request for me to go to hell. Goto statements are not acceptable programming constructs
As much as I hate to say this, It's a smart move to do this. It's not worth the risk to not comply if you a re a large company. The down-side is way to big to simply ignore it all.
This was the first thing I grabbed from google, no idea if it's fair or not, at least it's a better choice : Top ten. Host by others that do not support SCO's case (ask, so you can move again if they lie)
Are they still cock-smoking teabaggers?
I don't know exactly what I was expecting, something funny, but that was not it. That's the funniest thing I've read all morning.
-1, "1337" speak
If my host bought an SCO license they'd lose my business. I'd simply switch to another host.
If they want to throw their money away .. let them.
I really have another userid as well
From Groklaw:
"EV1Servers.net Leading Hosted Service Provider Deploys Windows-based Hosting Solutions Faster than Linux-based Solutions
"Business managers at EV1 Servers.net knew that there was a demand for a Microsoft Windows-based hosted service offering, but they did not think they could deploy Windows-based servers with the same speed or level of automation that they had achieved in their deployment of their traditional Linux-based systems. Yet with the introduction of the Microsoft Solution for Windows-based Hosting 2.0, which can take advantage of Automated Deployment Services (ADS)--a powerful new server purposing tool in Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Enterprise Edition--EV1 Servers.net is finding that it can deploy a Windows-based hosting service in less than half the time it takes to deploy a similarly configured Linux system. And they can do it with much less hands-on involvement than their Linux deployments demand."
Even though most of the Slashdotters are opposed to intellectual property, few of them want to move to Russia or Malaysia, where such behavior is well-respected.
Good to see that SCO is finally getting what it deserves. McBride brought this Linux company out of 50c/share hell into well-respected player in open source community.
Are there any other implications. I.e. they have a license for a binary kernel - does that mean it's okay for Linux et al to keep making the kernel, 'cause SCO are licensing people to use it? Of course they're only allowed to use a binary version - does that mean it's okay for RedHat and others to keep selling Linux, 'cause that's the only way SCO licensees can get hold of the binary kernel they've paid for?
Warning: mysql_connect(): Too many connections in /var/www/html/admin/db_mysql.php on line 40
It appears they are no longer a dedicated hosting company...
I mean, this is the FIRST company, and they've been complaining/campaining for months. Surely this is just showing that the majority of companies out there are laughing it off until an actual result in court is shown. Hence, SCO's case isn't looking too strong for the majority of Linux users out there.
It'd be a shame to see that happen to a nice little company like yours... (/mobster voice)
Tongue-in-cheek, folks!
If(when) SCO is deemed wrong in its desire to license linux, will those who bought licenses be entitled to refunds?
they're really smart. When SCO's case gets torpedoed in court, everyone who DIDN'T buy a license will just be glad it's over. EVI, on the other hand, will have a lovely case for fraud and extortion against SCO. It's not likely that's what they had in mind, but it's possible.
Hello Sir,
I was considering your service for a customer I was doing consulting for, they have built a small web based data driven application for doing internal CRM. Looks like my final recommendation is going to be racksaver as they are not in corroboration with The SCO Group.
I have read the terms of their license agreement, and I don't see anything of value in that contract. Contrary seem to open yourself up to their crosshairs in the future exposing yourself, and anyone that I would recommend to your service. I also strongly feel that they are weaving nothing but lies and decept in their practices, and I can't help but wonder what your company must have gained by doing business with them.
Unfortunately, I do fear that your going to have a backlash of bad press come from this and will be nothing but harm for your company. (Again, another reason that I would in the future not recomend anyone to do business with EV1Servers.NET, I don't believe you can sustain a business with that kind of bad press).
I suggest reading the following website: www.groklaw.net, as I am sure that it's just a matter of hours before your company is front page to it and will definitely be posed as a sacrificial lamb. Having been a business partner/owner myself, I would strongly suggest that you put a clear stance on the front page of your website regarding the purchase. The community that feeds you business will turn on you if you don't. I personally have been completely turned off by the news.
I hope you don't feel this letter was an attack, nor do I expect a response. I hope that the matter might be resolved before further harm is done to your business. Today you just lost one potential customer. I felt enclined to at least notify you why that would be, as maybe it can be corrected.
Kindest Regards
XXXX XXXX
CTO - XXX Xxxxxxxxx
Talk about not knowing when to shut up!
is nothing but the most transparent soundbyte of marketing spin. I'd be moving my data off their systems today.
For those of you who aren't customers of EV1, like I am, you might want to notice that they can't take very many new servers right now because their one operational datacenter is full. However, their new datacenter more than doubles their capacity and opens this week. Oh, and a 2-week long $1 setup fee special starts soon after that new datacenter goes online.
Considering that they didn't pay the "going rate" of $699 per server, and likely got a huge discount for allowing SCO to use their name, I'm pretty sure this one's being written off as an advertising expense. Slashdot and the rest of the tech media is taking the bait hook, line, and sinker.
The site www.ev1servers.net is running Microsoft-IIS/5.0 on Windows 2000.
The site forums.ev1servers.net is running Apache/1.3.28 (Unix) mod_gzip/1.3.26.1a PHP/4.3.2 on Linux.
...phil
"For a list of the ways which technology has failed to improve our quality of life, press 3."
The only thing I have ever received from EV1 was spam...
As much publicity as ev1servers.net is going to receive (negative, positive, regardless) having their servers not respond to a rush of traffic is not saying much for product...
Repeat after me, EV1Servers people...
:)
"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."
"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."
"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."
"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."
I wish people would remember that...
I'd be inclined to be a little upset, too... except that I don't run EV1 (though I do admin a few servers there), and so it's really none of my business. But I was wondering how long it would take for SCO to go after those kinds of people, since they're obvious sources of cash.
It sucks to see them feed the beast, but it may have been the smartest thing for them to do. They're an agressive company, growing like hell, and the last thing they need is to be the point defendent in something like this. So I understand the temptation to just pay it off and get it behind you.
I imagine SCO will next turn to smaller hosts, who will in turn make their own decisions.
What would be really nice is to have the darned courts get on with it, and actually decide something in this case. Most folks think SCO will go down in a ball of flames, but until that's determined, their claims are so wide-ranging that nobody can afford to take even a small chance. Until the courts start to give some indication of where they stand, this stuff will continue.
Note in all the articles & releases that 1: there is no mention if these licenses were purchased for any amount of money 2: it only covers "SCO Intellectual Property" and 3: it makes it seem like this is a Fortune 1000 company that's involved. The release states "EV1Servers.Net joins other Fortune 1000 companies that have signed up for a SCO IP license". Go take a look at any list of Fortune 1000 companies and check for yourself if EV1Servers.Net is listed. It's not even close.
In reading this press release it looks to me like the SCO FUD Machine is working at high speed.
In an effort to provide our customers the highest levels of service and investors the highest returns on investment, EV1 proudly announces our acquisition of the Brooklyn Bridge. In an exclusive bidding, EV1 acquired the bridge for approximately 25 million dollars, well below the projected market rates. EV1 expects revenue from bridge tolls to fund further purchasing of SCO licenses and fund expansion of our world-class MSCE support staff.
The article doesn't say, though does mention that they are getting a substantial discount. This could simply be a PR move for both companies.
And remember, there's no such thing as bad PR.
So if SCO's GPL liscense has been revoked (atleast for nmap or whatever software package it was last week), and they sell their liscense to someone else, is that third party's GPL liscense also revoked since they are trying to apply a different liscense to GPL code?
IANA(i am not anything)
[From Groklaw]
Sadly, that last link seems to be slashdotted already via Groklaw. The old "too many connections" PHP error. Heh.
I was apparently a bit late in submitting this article, but I have to wonder, would this action not terminate SCO's license to Linux under Section 4 of the GNU GPL?
Section 4 reads:
Of course, IANAL.
So they're paying almost 14 million dollars for nothing. Nice.
There's no way they paid $14 million for what clearly seems to be a pulbicity stunt from SCO. If you read the news.com article you can see they have around 20,000 servers and therfore recieved a high volume discount. On top of this they are the first company to not require a confidentiality clause in their agreement with SCO and I would be willing to be they recieved a handsome discount for giving SCO a little press to backup their claims.
As for paying for nothing only time will tell. Basically what they paid for insurance. They may realize that it is unlikely that SCO will win the lawsuit, however if they do they would then be liable for at least $14 million and possibly more. However by paying a small percentage of this to SCO now they have no liability.
Unfortunately I have a dedicated web server with Rackshack/EV1. I'm really frustrated. To migrate to a different host would be a huge hassle. Are there other decent hosting companies like EV1?
Thank God I'm in the process of dumping EV1 in favor of ServerMatrix. Lower prices, faster boxes, and 43% more bandwidth! I'm not going to support a company that falls for SCO's tactics. :(
Or do I just have to adjust my tin-foil hat?
C as eStudy.asp?CaseStudyID=14464
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/casestudies/
Along with alot of people who have posted above I am an ev1 customer and I hope that Robert goes against sco with everything he can. ev1servers has proven time and time again that they will fight for the end user and have done alot of industry breaking things in the price market. Now they get to face sco...should be interesting
I'd watch my step if I were you, you never know what Darl McBride might try next. He's been very successful in pursuing frivolous lawsuits to his own advantage in the past. If he decided he wanted to sue every poster on Slashdot for slander against his "good name", he'd be perfectly within his realm to do so. The only solution is to KILL ALL THE LAWYERS.
OT: Robert Marsh (CEO of E1servers.net) interview Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 01 2004 @ 01:08 PM EST
http://news.netcraft.com/archives/2004/02/03/inter view_ev1servers_ceo_robert_mar
sh.html
Q. You recently made a long-term commitment to Red Hat Enterprise as EV1Servers' standard Linux OS going forward, and have also begun offering FreeBSD. What factors guided your decisions on the "OS road map" for EV1Servers for 2004 and beyond?
A.Our number one consideration was long-term stability. For the majority of our users, web servers are business tools, not unlike phone systems or copy machines. They expect the equipment to work smoothly, and have no interest in devoting significant time and attention to frequent updates. We felt that RHE's 12-18 month release cycle and 5-year support timeframe would best meet their needs.
We also took into account our customers' feedback. While most were strongly supportive of our selection of RHE, we also received a significant number of requests for FreeBSD as an alternative. And that's what we now offer.
C|N>K
..when your own site exceeds max bandwidth.
On the bright side, they get what they deserve!
Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the merger of state and corporate power. -- Mussolini
Check out 1and1.com for some sweet deals on your own Linux server. $49/month for a root server is a great deal.
Personally, I think that any hosting company that has some sense, and has been following slashdot, groklaw, or _any_ other SCO related news in the last several months should realize exactly how much SCO has pissed off the open source community (among other governments and corporate giants).
If any hosting company that I had dealings with decided to support SCO in their extortionism and ridiculous claims, I would immediately find another hosting company.
java guy, tech blog...
If you're abandoning these guys, SlashChick runs a hosting company called simpli.biz, which other Fans of hers have said is pretty good.
sulli
RTFJ.
Heh, I hope everyone else decides to look for a new host when their account is do. I was about to get my wife an account this week too but that can wait. Mine expires in May and that's about 2 months to long for me. I do not care for SCO and their tactics towards Linux. I now do not care for EV1servers as well.
(they have been a good host otherwise though)
Could this be seen as a violation of the GPL by EV1?!
ev1servers.net 1666 Active Browsing Users... and climbing! Personally, I think I'll keep hitting "refresh" just to watch the slashdot effect in action!
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
On suso.org, I frequently ask my clients what they want out of their email/web hosting, etc. They give me feedback and tell me that one of the reasons why they like my service so much is because I include them.
I think too many businesses nowadays make decisions without actually surveying the customer base. After all, it is a service for THEM.
Check out their homepage, they are opening a new datacenter in less than 48 hours. With thousands of servers ready to go, these should sell like hotcakes with all the free publicity. People running a business don't care about "sticking it to SCO". They want a cheap server (which EV1 offers) and this newly added protection from SCO will be seen as a bonus.
Also, someone from EV1 said on the (now Slashdotted) forum that they bought a site license, not a per server licence, so they did not pay $700 * 20,000 servers. Hell, for all we know they could have paid zero. You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours, right?
Well, if their customers are "only pornographers and script kiddies", than what do you care?
"Who are in control, they are not in control of anything - they don't even control themselves!" - Glen Beck
...by hiring a Lawyer!
"Can there be a Klein bottle that is an efficient and effective beer pitcher?"
Yet another reason for me to not do business with them, not that I would anyway because of the way they did me about my name change years ago when I was on their dialup.
*It's not what you can do for the Dark Side but what the Dark Side can do for you!*
Not really. Apparently, they don't even run Linux (at least, not any more)! See also the Groklaw story which just went up about this (it's the one about how there's a lot of FUD today).
Microsoft claims here that they considered Linux, but came back to Microsoft products in the end.
My what curious press releases these folks appear in...
When this all blows over the companies that buy licences are going to look pretty stupid. I have no doubt that SCO will get laughed out of court, and I'd be surprised if the person who recommended buying a licence will actually have a job after that. 'So, Dave - why did you recommend we buy a worthless licence?' But more importantly, such a decision is not just going to be a waste of money, but it's going to impact negatively on the company's image. It's like letting yourself be threatened by a chiuaha.
With an additional 30,000 projected servers at capacity. If their licensing is yearly, this may have simply been a calculated move, to pay them now before the additional servers come online, so they could have a year of operating profits to pay them next year. They buckled to the pressure, as they are about to go through a giant expansive phase and don't wish for the SCO to jeopardize it.
I was all set to get a server from Ev1servers, until I did more research.
I found many problem reports about them and decided against using them. This makes me even more glad I decided to bail from the order form.
Until there is a ruling from a judge, upheld by appeals, saying infringement has occurred, I am not willing to have ANY of my $$$ go to SCO for a "license" to use Linux, even indirectly though someone I do business with.
. 62,400 repetitions make one truth -- Brave New World, Aldous Huxley
Wow, Slashdot's first "dupe" story that wasn't the story itself!
Vote in November. You won't regret it.
OMFG!!! EV1Servers bought the magic beans!!!! They're such lamers! LOL!
Ahhh, I see... slashdot wanted us to "visit" EV1Servers so that we could see how its users are upset over their sleeping with the devil. Very informative... ...wink wink,
nudge nudge,
say no more.
-m
#
# Modus Ponens
#
You tell EV1 that you're taking your business elsewhere, you take your business elsewhere, and you tell your friends to stay the hell away from EV1 as a hosting company.
I'm not a hosting customer, but I am a dialup customer. The initial news that they've paid their protection money to SCO annoyed me, but then I remembered why I signed up with them in the first place.
Back in mid-2003, they suffered a transformer explosion and fire. Their backup systems kicked in, and they could have easily gotten away with letting the whole thing pass. But they didn't.
They brought in two backup generators -- one to run things, and one as a backup for the backup. That ain't cheap -- it was a 3000 kVa transformer that exploded, and that sounds like an awfully large item to replace (times 2) in 12 hours -- especially since the explosion happened at 7pm local time, when Generators-R-Us is probably closed for the day.
But that's not all -- instead of sweeping the whole mess under the rug, EV1.net's senior technical personnel were on the message boards with up-to-the-minute updates throughout the ordeal. They even posted pictures of the aftermath. That takes some guts!
So they paid SCO's mobsters. Disgusting, yes, but I see it as insurance... like having a plan for a second backup generator in case the fail-proof first backup generator fails. The chances of SCO prevailing are slim, but non-zero... just like the chances of the backup generator failing.
Stay with EV1, folks. They're victims, like you... they're just trying to limit the damage.
Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
Just a suggestion to make the best of a bad situation: Alter the name slightly to "Ev1lServers" and market to supervillains. It's a tight market, but if you've got salespeople willing to check hollowed-out volcanos and old missile silos and the like, they've got mountains of under-utilised capitol. Just make sure you get as much money as you can up-front - they're prone to dissolve without warning despire their large resource base, or to kill your salespeople once the product is delivered. But with names like SCO and Ev1lServers, it's hard to go wrong!
[The above is not intended as real advice - I feel compelled to mention this because their company actually did get an SCO license]
Ryan Fenton
Not really. Look at the responses to this not just here, but on ev1 forums. Majority are negative. This is not the type of publicity that one wants.
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
Indeed. Show that sponsoring the terrorists is not tolerated.
Oh, for crying out loud, does every irritating jackass who uses intimidation tactics have to be called a "terrorist" now?
What a great idea, let's treat being litigious and greedy the same as being insane and murderous.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
I came across a certain home builders website hosted by EV1Servers who's main page was serving up a copy of VBS_RedLof.
Needless to say emails to their abuse department went unanswered and the infected page is still there.
it opens SCO up to copyright infringement claims by all of the people who hold copyrights on parts of the Linux kernel.
SCO appears to be in violation of the GPL, and so they do not have any permission to distribute or modify the kernel.
I am pretty sure that some people (ESR - not a kernel hacker, I know, but he'll be involved) have already been planning such a suit. I look forward to it being initiated.
...and Yahoo's article makes it sound like SCO's IP claims are in fact legitimate, and that Marsh was simply doing what needed to be done.
So a question might be asked whether EV1Server's subscribers should boycott EV1 or not. In theory, at least, the subscribers are now paying SCO to continue its legal slugfest, but is EV1 truly at fault for buying into SCO's FUDs?
In addition to the fact EV1Servers is supporting SCO, it has just been neatly demonstrated EV1Servers is incapable of standing up to a slashdotting.
Not exactly a positive indicator of their abilities as a hosting provider, is it ^_^
Irritable, left-wing and possibly humorous bumper stickers and t-shirts
Apparently, a lot of people weren't happy with ev1 even before this:
http://ev1-sucks.com/nuke/
Can anyone else here believe that IB-freaking-M is the hero of the open source movement right now?
Subject: Business opportunity.
Dear friends,
I am Seth. Just Seth. From god, to Kane, to Seth. I'm his right hand and I've got a business opportunity for you. You see, back in 1972, I have patented RAM memory. Allot of people realized how great my idea was and promptly started ripping me off. I assure you however that I am the logal patent holder for RAM memory but I'm not going to show anyone. From this day forth i would like to use this to claim some minor royalties. I would like $ 499,98 per megabyte of SDRAM, $ 799,98 per megabyte of DDR SDRAM and $ 10 per kilobyte of EEPROM. I will accept these royalties in unmarked 1000 ( one thousand ) dollar bills, left in non-descript paper bags behind the dumpter, next Wednesday.
Thank you, for your time and for respecting my patent.
PS,
I will be in touch in a few days regarding my patents for boolean values, macros, flash memory, DVDs and 19" rackmount cases. I assure you that I am the sole parent holder of all these items but I won't show anyone. Again, thank you for your time.
Sincerily,
Seth
Hate me!
You are permitted to pay for GPL software, or support.
This is completely legal for EV1.
Yes, they offer Red Hat Linux servers as well as FreeBSD servers as an _ALTERNATIVE_. They can offer both, ya know.
From http://www.ev1servers.net/english/support/index.as p:
(800) 504-7873
Unfortunately I'm a real dedicated server customer. I called and asked them to look into it and threatened to end my relationship with them if the situation is not rectified!!!
Unfortunately... /var/www/html/admin/
-The slashes are the wrong way. SOB!
Yes. Even more so.
...some users of EV1 appear to be somewhat upset.
Well, it's kinda like finding out that your business partners are working with the Mafia, isn't it?
but in reality I doubt there will be any meat left on them bones by the time IBM is done with them.
Don't forget that SCO has a PIPE deal with BayStar Capital and the Royal Bank of Canada that gives them priority over most claimants in any liquidation deal. Plus, The Canopy Group has a promissory note to SCO which also gives them priority.
So, I don't really know what kind of priority a court judgement gets in a bankrupcy, but I'd almost bet that IBM is third in line after BS/RBC and then Canopy. Even if they end up before them, there will certainly be nothing left for the licensees or the common shareholders.
They can't even setup their error page right. Here is the link for Technical Support email mailto:root
Hmmm I wouldn't want to use a hosting company that can't setup their webpage correctly. Or maybe they changed it so they wouldnt get bombarded by all the errors
...that even a blind squirrel can find a nut from time to time...
SCO claims that Unix code is illegally in Linux, but won't so us any proof. Now SCO claims that someone bought a license, but won't tell us how much they paid, if anything.
Can someone explain to me why the mainstream press isn't ripping SCO apart for their smoke-and-mirrors act?!
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
Somehow it seems EV1 Forum has been "Slashdotted". Fine.
Now wait for Darl to accuse the Linux Community(tm) of DDoS'ing their customer. And then claiming that the fear of that means they won't release any more licensee's names to the public....
-D'ohhh. we've just dealt them a nice line.
So they paid SCO's mobsters. Disgusting, yes, but I see it as insurance... like having a plan for a second backup generator in case the fail-proof first backup generator fails. The chances of SCO prevailing are slim, but non-zero... just like the chances of the backup generator failing.
... the rest of us are not in this position, SCO rhetoric and nonsensical ravings aside.
It is not insurance, it is anti-insurance. Now they have a contractual relationship with SCO, a contractual relationship which gives SCO the power to sue EV1, but does not offer EV1 any tangible protection whatsoever. See the groklaw analysis of the SCO licensing terms for specifics.
EV1 is now in a position where it can be sued by SCO and not have the lawsuit thrown out immediately
I'd say EV1 is likely in for a world of hurt, and their customers would be well advised to be looking around for alternatives.
The Future of Human Evolution: Autonomy
Microsoft provides the SCOG $millions in loan cum licensing deal to attack their No. 1 threat, Linux.
Microsoft touts EV1 in Win2003/Linux case study.
Netcraft names EV1 the top Win2003 hosting provider.
EV1 has amazingly low, low pricing for Win2003 servers.
EV1 buys SCO IP license just days before Q1 conference call, and on the day of the PIPE and Boies deals deadline.
Coincidence or Conspiracy? Let the DoJ make the call.
I know that I really really REALLY want to have my hosting company be one that fails under a slashdotting ...
[/sarcasm]
And you are a goddamned motherfucking asshole! Although I'll admit the comic is pretty funny even if it is old hat. But no.. that's not me. Trust me Darl isn't reading Slashdot, but he's got his lackeys doing it so that he can find another reason to sue people.
echo "EV1Servers" >> boycott.list
----
SCO invests $$ in EV1Servers.net.
EV1Servers.net purchases a site license for SCO IP, for less than $$ invested.
People should pay for the software they use.
Just browsing EV1 site and came across the team photos page
. as p
http://www.ev1servers.net/english/aboutus/staff
Landlocked Texas web hosting company seems to have defied the laws of nature and has recruited a team of whales to staff the business.
Are there any special cost advantages to this?
Do they pay in USD or krill?
I'm looking forward to the Businessweek in depth study.
Ev1Hosting.net (formerly rackshack) used to run primarily Linux servers. They were approached by Microsoft (as many data centers have been) and Microsoft offered them a substantial discount on 2003 server because of the number of Linux servers hosting web pages vs. 2003 shown on a certain website. Microsoft also offered free 2003 server training programs to the staff at racksha... Ev1hosting.
Rumors in the industry have it that they are being used as a primary "showpiece" for Microsoft web servers.
I know this because I used to work for the competition, and Microsoft approached us with the same offer. Mind you, we all got laid off as our jobs were outsourced to India.
Let's make it clear to whomever is considering paying the SCO extortion: if they do, SCO will reveal them, since it is part of their propaganda campaign. And as soon as they do, at least half their customer base will cancel their contracts. Still feel that was a smart move, EV1? Perhaps you trusted SCO not to reveal your confidential business? What has SCO done in the last year that would give you the impression that you should trust them?
"Freedom means freedom for everybody" -- Dick Cheney
There are lots of companies in the portable power plant business. Getting a semi-trailer sized plant on site in 12 hours isn't that big a deal, big bucks though, on short notice.
Big construction sites, festival events, etc are regular users of these services.
Spam is here because there is a small percentage of people stupid enough to purchase the spam-vertised products. Likewise, if there is a small percentage of people stupid enough to fall for SCO's extortion, then it's a success. What are the chances that any of these "licensees" will get their money refunded when SCO loses?
In other news, one of EV1's biggest competitors, ServerMatrix, IS NOT supporting SCO's FUD.
Support the fight against SCO's FUD! Host at ServerMatrix!
Some localities have specific laws that affect what you are and aren't allowed to specify in a contract. [eg, in Maryland, you're not allowed to sign away your safety, so you can still sue after signing a liability waiver if you incur physical harm]
EV1 may be in a jurisdiction that results in parts of the contract not applying to them, and be able to get back their money and possibly, legal fees on top of it.
[Of course, the only things I know about contracts was a 2 credt course in college, that I slept through... I think I passed, though]
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
That's it. They're just dumbasses. They're probably a Windows shop, they provide Leenoox for the people that want it, and they bought their way out when SCO made a threat.
I wouldn't be at all surprised if the threat was followed by them dumping all of their Leenoox boxes for some win2k3 action. Seems like the perfect time for Microsoft to make an appearance and save them from this costly conundrum.
Ev-whatever gets to solidify the relationship with MS, dodge an imaginary lawsuit from SCO and get rid of all that leenoox business that was making them nervous anyway.
What care do they have for the damage they leave in thier wake.
...Microsoft.
/tinfoil hat
tinfoil hat
They offer windows servers. Some people want these, people who want to run MSSQL or ASP.net or whatnot. Now, what if Microsoft told them "hey, I think it would be in your interests to play along with SCO unless you want us to increase your license fees 100 fold
Microsoft have done similar before and I wouldn't put it past them now.
I am NaN
Many other providers sell true dedicated with many OS at that price point (or better).
Start with www.servermatrix.com. RHES, Redhat 9, FreeBSD, and, yes, Windows.
And "best in business" is an opinion not shared by many. Go to www.webhostingtalk.com to see comparisons.
I thought giving customers indemnification (hell, or at least the possibility of a refund) was the most important thing in the world, at least according to SCO and friends (AKA Enderle and Dido).
Before the whole SCO thing they had been helping Microsoft FUD Linux. They aren't on "our" side just because they run Linux.
a friend and i just started renting a dedicated box there a month ago... i am disgusted to think that my money is going to support SCO, and i am now looking for another host. any suggestions for dedicated freebsd boxes? (paying ~$150/mo now)
-
EV1 Servers provides low-cost dedicated servers for adult Webmasters
...
"Adult customers represent a significant proportion of EV1Servers' user base," he says. "I can't give you exact stats, because we don't review and rate content hosted on our network. But I can tell you that adult users are highly valued members of our community." -- Robert Marsh, EV1 CEO.
Ref: Host4Porn.comEV1 even links to that article.
Hosting companies such as EV1 are probably the easiest targets for SCO because,
1.) They have thousands of servers.
2.) They operate on razor thin margins making money on volumes.
The legal costs of a suit with SCO would for sure shut them down.
EV1 was offered a cheap site license not $699 per server at a cost probably heavily negotiated with a carrot and stick approach by SCO.
Finally it's interesting to note that EV1 advertises Red Hat Enterprise and Windows as their selling point. Infact I don't see any server with SCO Linux on offer at all.
Go to http://www.ev1servers.com, then mod the parent down.
Given that SCO has yet to prove anything at all in court, their current efforts are about legal extortion.
It is important to remember that extortion succeeds because it often makes good business sense to pay the fee, rather than fighting a huge fight at some risk against the person extorting the money.
This means a company might make what it perceives as a good "business decision" which involves paying the extortionists rather than fighting them. You see this with all these types of rackets (DDOS, old fashioned thugs on the street, kidnappers, SCO etc).
It is important to stop the payments to these guys. If no one paid kidnappers, they would stop finding it lucrative to kidnap. Paying SCO just funds their business model, just as paying a kidnapper funds the kidnappers (in some contries kidnappers dive the fancy cars and have full out well oiled operations based on the revanue they realize).
There should be a two prong attack on these SCO extortionsts.
One is to insure that their claims are shot down clearly in a court of law. This IBM is well suited to accomplish, with armies of lawyers who can slowly grind through the millions of pages of documents a $5 billion case can generate.
The second is to make extortion payments a bad business decision for the companies that make them. That is where the vast majority of users come in.
When a company partners with SCO, and SCO starts issuing their press releases, users MUST indicate to the company (EV1) that the partners they do business with say a lot about the company, and MOVE THEIR BUSINESS elsewhere.
It is as simple as that. These companies have often built an entire business on open source, and are now paying cash money to groups who are claiming the GPL is invalid and that the software is like a toy car.
Let's see business move from EV1.
Isn't EV1 a trademark of General Motors?
Celebrity Deathmatch: Darl McBride VS Linus Torvalds
I bet that, it was the SCO who paid the fee to claim the first customer.
Any more takers ?
Of course, you are absolutley right. But I think that the parent's line was meant as a joke. I don't think anyone is going to literally "bring out the torches" either.
EV1Servers (formally rackshack) had crappy support anyway, now they have crossed the line...
- Rod
Something tells me their linux hosting business is about to dry up.
"EV1Servers.Net joins other Fortune 1000 companies"
The word "other" implies that EV1 is also a Fortune 1000 company, and it is not. SCO's ability to write misleading crap remains intact.
That CEO should be fired. Anyone that payes a blackmailer then take credit for it, should be FIRED and never hired again except for maybe flipping burgers!! SCO from what I have seen a read have about one chance in 10000 to win anything and that is before the appeals start.
It is possible that SCO offered an unlimited license to EV1servers.net for some nominal amount of money, perhaps $1.
We don't really know what the deal was. Of course, even if they paid only $1 for a license, it was more than what that license is really worth.
My other first post is car post.
1) Logon to your EV1Servers.net hosted Linux webserver.d BinaryOnDifferentSites
5) Any such arrangement in (4) would be a violation of the SCO Group's License with EV1Servers.net - Catch 22.2) Download a copy of the Linux kernel binary and all the modules.
3) EV1Servers.net are making use of derived works under the terms of the GPL. They are obligated to provide the source code under the terms of the GPL if they make the binaries available to the customers.
4) Under the terms of the GPL, EV1Servers.net must either make the binaries avilable on the same place, or http://www.fsf.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#SourceAn
Its a shame to see someone kneel before Zod... errr... Darl... but in all honesty can you blame them?
Yes it DOES look a little shady. Yes, they are listed as one of the top Windows 2003 hosting companies on Netcraft. Yes they do provide dedicated hosting on RHEL and FreeBSD boxen...
Whether or not SCO has a legal leg to stand on is besides the point. So far NO ONE has managed to get a court to set aside litigation pending the outcome of Red Hat v SCO and SCO v IBM. If I were running a company with a clamed 20,000+ (soon to be over 30,000) servers, I would also look to see what I could to do minimize litigation.
On the one hand, yes, they could just tell SCO to piss off, and spend the next few years in expensive litigation. On the other hand, they could pay a bit now, and get a written guarantee from SCO to not sue. From a business stand point, I would take the easier route every time (which is why most companies choose to settle out of court without going through long and protracted legal battles).
Keep in mind, this is all IMHO, as I host through someone else entirely and have no direct experience with EV1/RackShack as a company. Just my opinion which could be made to fit any company that may buy one of SCO's protection racket schemes.
Then again, here is yet another Linux based, not terribly expensive, and decent webhost:
www.webgnostics.com
Cheers
Jeff
"Our funds have never taken part in toxic or death spiral convertible financings of any sort" -BayStar's managing partne
Boycott EV1? That shouldn't be hard. Until a few minutes ago I had no idea who they were.
Except what about this SCO license--doesn't it include no-redistribution terms that conflict with the GPL? Is EV1's permission to redistribute Linux now terminated under the GPL as well as under the SCO license? Can they be required to stop offering Linux hosting, by anyone that has GPL'd code compiled into the kernel? That would include quite a few parties like Red Hat and IBM, whose attitude towards SCO is less than favorable and which have the lawyers to back it up.
EV1 may find itself much more screwed by its SCO deal than if it had refused to deal with SCO.
whether EV1Servers has something to do with the Canopy Group... somehow I wouldn't be surprised.
Couldn't FSF(or the Linux authors) sue SCO now for breach of contract. They are distributing Linux under another thing(damn, I have to pay attention at English classes) than the GPL. And the GPL is everything that grands SCO the right to distribute Linux.
[whois.opensrs.net]
Registrant:
Customer Service
2600 SW Freeway
Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77098
US
Domain name: EV1SERVERS.NET
Administrative Contact:
Internet, Everyones domainmanager@ev1.net
2600 SW Freeway
Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77098
US
+1.7133337873 Fax: +1.7139429332
Technical Contact:
Internet, Everyones domainmanager@ev1.net
2600 SW Freeway
Suite 500
Houston, Texas 77098
US
+1.7133337873 Fax: +1.7139429332
Registration Service Provider:
EV1Servers.net / Everyones Internet, osc@ev1.net
713-400-5400 x108
Obviously, there is no publicity as 'bad' publicity these days.
Dear valued customer;
Thankyou for purchasing our lunix site licence.
YHBT YHL HAND
Sincerly;
Your friends at SCO
(It's funny, laugh!)
Any sufficiently advanced influence is indistinguishable from control.
When I first read the Microsoft case study I thought it said "With AIDS they can automate the build of a Windows-based server with Ensim and bring it online 150 percent faster than they can bring a similarly configured Linux system online." And I thought to myself "Daamn, they must be getting pretty good with engineering viruses nowadays." Why cure AIDS when you can make it into the first virus that actually helps make Microsoft more money.
JasonBlogs
> an ISP nobody ever heard of
Nobody ever heard of?! EVERYONE in the hosting industry knows of EV1Servers (aka Rackshack). They are one of the biggest providers of discounted rack servers on the planet. NetCraft apparently knows about them too, and had an interview with Marsh. The host a LOT of boxes.
They are likely the biggest provider of startup web hosting servers around. Although they aren't the cheapest around, they are probably the cheapest that still offers any level of service. I'd say anyone who hasn't heard of them probably isn't in the industry.
Not only are we /.ing them, but spamming their IT people too:
An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff
Wishing I was a millionaire since 1969.
Dammit... I'm moving mystuff to ServerBeach...
blah... dissapointed.
e.
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
apparently, license or no license, they couldn't keep up with the /. traffic....or maybe it was the result of the license. ooo....found a disadvantage (a con of the "very few if any pros and tons of cons); license == server downage.
Boy, this reeks of corruption. You partner up with people who likely know you're crooked, bankroll you, and somehow you manage to set up a deal that when you're finally caught, they get to take all of your stolen loot (except what you've given Daryl in wages and bonuses)? Are the courts really likely to let this go on?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
If you go to their homepage, the list all their services. Almost without exception, everthing is "sold out".
Funny way to run a business...
You were mistaken. Which is odd, since memory shouldn't be a problem for you
After figuring out that they actually gat raped in the deal with Novell, buying much less than they thought, they've learned to do the same thing to others.
I used to work at ev1servers. I was there when they first deployed their windows boxes. It was a huge mess, like most new things are. We all generally had a shared feeling of hatred for the new windows servers. Over time the dust settled, but supporting them has always been hell. Sometimes there just isnt much you can do when a GUI breaks and binary files it uses get corrupt. And the control panels for windows are a joke! I couldnt believe Ensim for windows.. and Helm, HAHA. They're probably the worst attempt at control panels I've ever seen. Maybe it has something to do with the closed source nature of IIS, but they are horribly broken and hell to support people with.
The point of this is, I remember the day when we got that article sent over to us from Microsoft. I saw a hard copy with little graphs showing how much easier and quicker it is to set up our Windows servers compared to Linux servers. It was sent to us so that we could approve it and sign off on all the quotes about how much we love Windows at Ev1Servers. I cant think of a single person who likes the Windows servers except Robert Marsh. Of course he never really knows whats going on and buys into windows being the next big thing. From that moment on I knew NEVER to believe in official opinions made by companies. Most of the articles you see are one big controlled commercial publicity stunt. That article pissed us all off.
By the way, about the deployment of Linux servers vs Windows servers. We were easily able to install a firewall on all of our unsold Linux servers that blocks out everyone but a few ips. When the server is sold, the signup script can automatically log in and disable the firewall with iptables so that the customer can reach his new server.
However, to my knowledge, to this day, Ev1servers has still been unable to do this on Windows servers. I think that says a lot about how usable Windows is as a server.
Notice that nowhere in any of the articles is it mentioned just how much money EV1 paid for their site license? I'm guessing it was peanuts. SCO probably made them a really, really good offer, one that cost less than it would have cost them to get the company lawyer to laugh at their cease-and-desist letter, let alone fight a lawsuit.
This way, SCO could announce that a respectable company had bought a license from them, the implication being that somebody was taking them seriously.
I can't really blame EV1 for doing it. They have some 20,000 Linux boxes and if SCO were to win, they'd be in serious trouble. Paying them off for a few bucks is, granted, giving in to extortion, but it's cheap insurance against disaster.
I'm an EV1 Servers customer and when I found out about this I was rather sickened. I think one of the people that posted in the thread on their forums put it best with something along the lines of "I'm offended you used the money I pay you to fund SCO's frivilous lawsuits". I couldn't agree more. Basically, in my opinion, they've forced every one of their current and future customers to support SCO. I've been with them for a year and a half, with no big problems, but if I could move my customers without any downtime or cost increase to me, I would in a heartbeat. Unfortunately, thats not realistically possible for me at this time.
Puh-leeese.
Its pretty clear that SCO is stretched to the limit right now. They can't even answer basic discovery from IBM. If EV1 had the slightest amount of balls, they would laugh and say, "Bring it...by the way, this is going to be an EXPENSIVE trial".
Of course, now that I think of it, its likely SCO said.... 15,000 hosts * $700 per host, lets see, that uh... a ZILLION dollars.
EV1 probably said "How about nothing?"
SCO likely said "Okay, give us $50K, we'll give you a license, but we get to trumpet your name". It gives SCO a PR win. And saves EV1 lots of legal costs.
The thing is... we should all claim we own some IP in Linux and EV1 should pay us. Death by 1000 paper cuts...
How much do you want to bet SCO offered them a discount for allowing their name to be announced?
I bet they're kicking themselves right now..
"a***ole", "B@***rd", and "useless, talentless..." already exist, used for example in the well-known the well-known "litigious b@s**rds".
This doesn't count a whole bunch of curse words that insult homosexual people by comparing them to SCO...
my sincere hope is that we will eventually be able to accurately describe Canopy and SCO execs as felons, prisoners, and "Bubba's little b*&ches" when this is done; it doesn't describe what they've done, only what they'll be doing because of it.
In addition to EV1's documented spam support, this act makes for a very good argument that the management of the company is clueless. Do you really want people so stupid as to give in to SCO's bullshit running your webserver?
STOP MISUSING APOSTROPHES, YOU MORONS!!!
This space intentionally left blank :)
Yes some people may now know their name. But ask yourselve this. How many today have decided to take their hosting elsewhere? This is not the internet boom anymore. Hosting providers can't afford to be picky anymore. I think some manager somewhere made a huge miscalculation. Worse there is talk about and nmap already did this of revoking SCO license to use opensource products. Could this also be extended to licensees? After all this company just put its signature on a document claiming everything SCO said is true. Therefore breaking the GPL.
I think when the dust settles this company will have egg on its face for years to come. 2010 Salesrep "We offer the most advanced hosting services in the world." Customer "Oh yeah weren't you the idiots that wasted money on an illegal license?" Salesrep "Damn"
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
Come on folks!!!, EV1 have just bought worldwide publicity for a few thousand bucks, that's all!!!!. How many of you have ever heard about them???. Now you know them, just like the ads on a magazine but really mooore cheap!!!!
serverbeach.com was mentioned but 1and1.com offers good deals for dedicated servers..and no SCO subsidy.
First of all, we're talking about a company that hires helpdesk/technicians by interviewing hundreds of people for a job that pays only slightly over minimum wage. At the height of the unemployment boom EV1 preyed on the unemployed for $5.00 an hour and are still only paying those persons $5.00 an hour. If your dumb enough applies I guess. And, they do drug testing........a no-no in my book, cause if you're gonna hire someone at $5.00 an hour you better realize you get what you pay for. EV1.....The Walmart of the Internet.
that's actually www.groklaw.net
An EV1 Admin named Isabel posted this to the ev1 user forum as an explanation for why they bought a license:
--- quote ----
Why? Here's why.
Our primary consideration is the stability of our customers' operations. Many of you rely 100% on your servers to do business. Any risk to your uninterrupted use of Linux could have very serious financial impact.
Instead of waiting to see what develops, we decided to acquire a SCO site license in order to preemptively eliminate this issue from your list of possible worries. Regardless of your position on SCO's claims, we feel it is our responsibility to provide a hosting environment that is not dependent on the outcome of future legal proceedings.
--- end quote ----
I'm beginning to think that EV1 really had no idea what they were doing. Maybe they really are that clueless.
1) you open up a one-way pipe to that boundless purveyor of FUD and sewage, SCO. SCO gets advertising that they wanted - someone believes their FUD and is willing to pay. EV1 opened a one-way contractual relationship which offers them no protection against SCO lawsuits while increasing the probability that they will be sued. EV1 has likely increased rather than decreased the risks of their Linux servers and increased their legal exposure. In addition, SCO gets some of EV1's money.
2) EV1 is getting advertisements that they couldn't possible buy...because they wouldn't want to. They just told a whole bunch of Linux people (who are likely to run machines at companies who might do business with EV1 and might have input in the choice of a hosting company) that they are supporting the evil that is SCO. You might as well be a financial accounting company for churches who decided to buy indemnification from a Satanic church. it's advertising, but if it costs you business (as this might) I don't see why it's worth paying for.
SCO got money, a pipeline to lawsuits, and positive publicity. EV1 is likely to get negative publicity, lost business, and a morass of potential legal liabilities from SCO lawsuits.
Some advertising (like the advice of stupid people) is worth les than you paid. Unless I am really mistaken, it seems like EV1 bought advertising worth a lot less than they paid, with the prospect of paying even more later. Unless EV1 has investment money/part ownership in SCO this makes no sense at all.
"vBulletin Message"
:)
"Due to a recent slashdot article related to SCO, the forums are experiencing an extremely high number of connections, we are actively working on upgrading the servers and should be able to restore some order shortly."
Behave yourselves!
The last thing we need is a CNN Headline: Linux Users DDoS SCO's first bitch.
I'm pissed that some of my money is going to SCO, but I can understand that EV1 is the victim of extortion here. SCO has threatened to sue the bejesus out of them if they don't cough up the cash. If they say the cost of defending themselves and the possibility of having to even temporarily stop using Linux is too great a risk for them, I'll stand by that and keep my anger an SCO rather than on the victim.
EV1 is a pretty damn cool company. They offer a good product at a fair price. They are clear about what services they provide and which they don't. I'm going to keep doing business with EV1 and hope that as this clears out they can be used as a test case for a suit against SCO for damages from the extortion happening today.
If SCO were to sue an end user and win, the end user would be liable for exactly zero. In order to claim damages in a copyright suit, the plaintiff must show reasonable attempts to mitigate those damages.
SCO has provided the names of some ABI headers, but has failed to support their infringement claims with any evidence. If you scour the web, you'll find a lot of material explaining why the ABI headers are not infringing, but none explaining why they are. SCO has not given reasonable Linux users any reason to believe their claims, so they can't claim damages.
This is the last straw. Moving my servers to serverbeach within the month. Marsh can suck it. Headsurfer indeed.
I guess now is the time to ask which lines are the SCO code and which are not so that the lines of code which are not SCO can be recompiled at will as the copyright holder allows. Does SCO intend to deprive all other Linux copyright holders their rights to allow the Linux copyright licensees (users) their ability to recompile code e.g. tweak modules ?.
Could be this site license is a Trojan horse for SCO and may prove to be a Pyrrhic victory.
-1, Can't draw a valid conclusion to save his life.
/. "IANAL" is completely wrong. I guess that that you should have said IANAL because URANAL.
Clearly it doesn't matter if they have no grounds to sue - they will sue anyway; ask IBM. Just because they sold a license doesn't mean that the license is valid. Nothing has changed. They could have sued before, they can sue now.
It's funny...the one legal opinion that's posted without the typical
when I am glad I live in a foreign country ... I have a box at EV1Servers and thankfully the people in my town here in Europe have mostly no idea what is going on with SCO (if they did I would have to move up the nearest mountain now knowing that my box has b33n 0wn3d by SCO) ...
... and to all those that reported the Slashdotting of the servers, thankfully mine is still running fine ...
;)
I don't agree with EV1Servers choice to pay the SCO license, but I have to admit that out of all the different hosting providers I have been with it has been the best service
p.s. my mother lives close to their datacenter and I think I will call her and ask her to evacuate to galveston just in case
And I was thinking of hosting with this company...
Company A builds a business based on linux.
Company A then pays money to another company sueing to destroy business based on linux.
???
No, it's not.
Remember, McBribe said "contracts are what you use against someone."
Now, since EV1 has a contract with SCO, any claims SCO makes against EV1 won't be laughed out of court.
EV1 "WAS" my ISP until a few moments ago. Not no more.... I cancelled immediately when I heard the news.....
I leased a server from EV1 back when they were called RackShack.net. Over the course of a week, the server had to be re-imaged three times due to a problem that I never quite managed to diagnose but that most certainly caused everything to stop working right quick. Their techs were stumped over the matter.
They had a minimum six month (or perhaps 1 year) contract at the time. I informed them that given that we could not get the server working in a reasonable amount of time, that I was going to go ahead and go elsewhere. They informed me that I had a contract, and thus I could not do that without paying a fine. I informed them that a contract is an agreement with mutual obligations between in this case two parties, where one party (me) provides money in exchange for the other party (RackShack) providing a service (dedicated hosting). Given that RackShack had failed to provide the services stated in the contract, I was under no obligation to provide money.
This illicited the response of "but sir, you signed a one year contract". Finally I worked my way up through about three levels of management until I got to someone with a bit of authority. At this point I was (seriously) threatening legal action if they didn't refund all money and cancel the account. At first the woman I dealt with upheld the "you're locked in, sorry" argument, right up until the point where she offered to check the situation with her legal dept. The next phone call involved an apology and a check.
What has *science* done?!? -- Dr. Weird (ATHF)
Apparently I looked up the wrong 2advanced the first time. The other guy said flash and I remembered hearing about 2advanced.com and having the page after the entrance show up blank because it expected flash.
And the muscular cyborg German dudes dance with sexy French Canadians
As the owner of headsurfer.net, you can rest assured that this new development will be thoroughly lambasted on that site as soon as I can get it back up.
I just got a server from them and have just finished setting up the DNS and email and web servers. Now I'm going to have to find another company any move everything. What a pain! Any suggestions for hosting companies where I can get a similar or better deal that their $99 servers?
First, this is the email I sent to their sales team...
"I've been trying to decide which hosting company to use for my business. I've been looking long and hard at a few, ev1servers being one of them. Your purchase of licences from SCO has helped me narrow down the pack by eliminating hosting by ev1servers from consideration. Bravo, and thank you."
(my name with-held(sp))
Their response...
"If you do not want to host with the best in the business, that is definitely your choice, but I would not recommend it.
Thank you,
Aaron Conklin
Sales Supervisor
1-800-504-7873
www.ev1servers.net"
The best in the business? My ass, more like the most clueless in the business. More like run by the clueless.
I only deal with smart persons and smart entities, ev1 is not one of them.
Steve's Computer Service, Hobbs, NM
servermatrix is cheaper and provides more support.
Servermatrix is cheaper and provides more support AND they dont buy SCO licenses..
Dustin - A different story...
http://hosts4porn.com/profiles/ev1.cfm
EV1 Servers provides low-cost dedicated servers for adult Webmasters
EV1Servers (EV1Servers.net), known until recently as RackShack, is not a hosting firm focused expressly on serving adult sites, says Robert Marsh, the company's "head surfer." But that has not proven to be a barrier to success in the adult market for EV1Servers, one of the companies leading the movement toward lower-priced dedicated hosting offerings.
The nature of the company's product offering, a set of customer-managed dedicated hosting products that helped to bring down the cost of dedicated hosting across the industry, have made EV1Servers a hit with a certain type of customer, adult or otherwise.
I thought they owned the boxes? If not, how can they possibly sign that agreement with SCO unless you gave them permission to sign agreements for you? Are you now bound by the terms of SCO's license contract?
What are they going to do for security updates now that they can't apply source patches and the fact RH will probably terminate their support contract giving them binary updates?
Yeah right bitch. LIke Darl gives a shit about a bunch of pimply faced teens in their parent's basements talking about "world domination". Darl is going to win and you Lunix losers are gonna be sorry. Idiot fuckers.
the free publicity this got them.
EV1 provide hosted with pre-installed Linux (RedHat Enterprise) systems with root access for the customers to allow customization.
With root access the customer is free to download the Linux kernel binaries.
Therefore if EV1 installs the Linux Kernel and provides root access to customers then EV1 are implicitly allowing distribution of Linux kernel binaries to those customers.
What's the url?
SearchIRC - Now with live chat directory!
terrorist (adj)
(1) characteristic of someone who employs terrorism
(2) a radical who employs terror as a political weapon
SCO has been lobbying to outlaw open source. That puts them in the political arena. They try to scare companies into either giving up Linux in favour of SCO or purchasing SCO Linux licenses.
SCO is a textbook example of a terrorist. Granted, they don't kill people, but the point of terrorism isn't to kill, it's to intimidate so that you can achieve your political ends.
Look at what happened last year with the anthrax scare or two decades ago with the Tylenol scare. I don't remember if anyone died in either case, but I do know that in both cases the U.S. was parallized with fear. The objective was reached.
EV1Servers.Net .net crowd is paying the SCO FUD propoganda...
Uh-huh, you guessed it...Balmer is balmy, Gates is [are] open. The
When all is said and done, nothing changes...
Oh, and about that resume...you've been an "Independent Computer Consultant" for a year - I think that roughly translates to "Oh crap, I'm unemployed in Mexico, but it's cheap to live here, so I can pick up some consulting gigs on the side to supplement my tequila habit."
And the big open source projects that you're working on? I like the appeal for help for them. I guess that you just figured out that you can't make any taco money writing free software.
By the way, even in Spanish, there is a word for "my mother's brother". In English, it's "Uncle".
You are definitely
from what little I know (IANAL - I just read those on /.), the SCO licences open EV1 to potential lawsuits and diminish EV1's ability to have such lawsuits dismissed. This doesn't preemptively eliminate the threat to EV1 Linux hosting, but instead amplifies it.
By buying SCO's licenses (and their FUD), EV1 effectively is providing a hosting environment dependent on the outcome of court proceedings; if SCO wins, they could try to milk EV1 for more money, while if they lose, they could also sue EV1 for money (unless IBM and RedHat grind SCO into asphalt like a good steel-toed boot squishing a cockroach),
Am I missing something, or is EV1 not smart enough to hire good lawyers?
finally I can get in and read some of the comments posted on the ev1 servers forum. Interesting to read the comments that MAYBE there can be a refund if SCO loses but really I don't think so - once SCO eventually bankrupts or gets bought out at some insane low price ev1 will only be an unsecured creditor, if they can even get termed a creditor since it appears the license fee is non-refundable...
perhaps the long term pay-off is being able to go out on ebay and announce they are selling rare original Linux license documents from the SCO Group although this will once again make people look and say "Just what were you people thinking/drinking/smoking/snorting/shooting when you decided to buy those potentially worthless SCO licenses anyway???" It must have been the party/bender of the century and I'm sure there must be more interesting and incriminating office party pictures in this case.
The best comment on that board had to be this one Marsh is a smart guy, maybe he's just looking for free publicity and his link on high traffic yahoo.com biz news
Not to mention slashdot. I wonder if there are some gullable people out there who are willing to pay extra to not have to worry about SCO suing them over their server.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
terrorist. Read here:
STANDOFF ENDS TRAGICALLY FOR ECCENTRIC SQUINTILLIONAIRE
Steve Raiguel; BSNN contributor
DUCKBURG- In a coordinated predawn raid this morning, heavily
armed agents from the Treasury Department, FBI, and ATF stormed the
supposedly impenetrable bunker known as the "Money Bin", from which "Uncle"
Scrooge McDuck, accused ringleader of a tax resistance network, has held
Federal Marshals at bay for more than two weeks. After a brief exchange of
shots following the breaching of the bunker's walls, the octogenarian went
down in a hail of gunfire.
The siege began early this month after McDuck lost a final court appeal
seeking to enjoin the of seizure his huge fortune. McDuck fell afoul of
the Internal Revenue Service last year in failing to report his "Old Number
One" dime to the IRS, listing it instead as a "talisman". On discovering
this omission, the IRS moved swiftly to seize McDuck's fortune under
federal forfeiture statutes, leading to the lengthy court battle during
which McDuck vowed, prophetically, that "they would steal his money over
his dead body"
In a second, simultaneous raid at a house on Mallard Way owned by McDuck's
35-year-old nephew, Donald Duck, agents, acting on an anonymous tip,
recovered further evidence of a far-reaching conspiracy. Donald Duck, an
individual described by neighbors as 'temperamental' and 'combative', was
taken under arrest along with three male juveniles discovered living at the
residence. They are now being questioned by authorities regarding the
activities inside the Duck compound.
Duck reportedly appeared frequently in public sporting a quasi-military
sailor's outfit, and has long been suspected of right-wing militia
activity. Survivalist gear, including uniforms, insignia, and literature
of the clandestine "Junior Woodchucks" organization were found inside the
compound. Agents were initially unable to locate the cache of weapons
stipulated by the search warrant until the arrival of a van containing
several large crates labeled "special search equipment" which were unloaded
into the compound under close guard. Shortly thereafter, a huge stockpile
of automatic rifles, grenades, bazookas, and tactical nuclear weapons came
to light and were put on display for reporters.
Back at the "Money Bin", ATF personnel displayed an unregistered assault
blunderbuss recovered from the burned-out ruins of the bunker. An agent
explained that while technically legal, it was the weapon of choice for
street gangs and psychopathic serial killers. "These things may look
harmless enough", he explained, "but by changing just three components -
the barrel, the action, and the stock - you can convert one into a fully
automatic 105-mm howitzer. I hate to think of how many kids we saved by
getting this baby off the streets."
Gladstone Gander, head of the FBI's domestic strike force and coordinator
of the assault on the McDuck stronghold denied that profit had been a
motive in moving to seize the enormous assets contained in the bunker.
"Certainly not, I can say uncatagorically that the monies involved, huge
though they may be, had absolutely nothing to do with our decision to act.
McDuck has been under our scrutiny for some time now, and if need be, we
can produce witnesses linking his name to international money laundering
interests, drug smuggling, child pornography, Satanism, and the
disappearance of Jimmy Hoffa. We had information - I'm not at liberty to
divulge the sources, of course - that he and his nephew were also the
leaders of a Duck Supremacist cult that was abusing ducklings. That's why
we had to move - to protect those kids! Anybody saying otherwise is simply
trying to undermine this investigation and I can assure you, that those
individuals can expect to have their 1040 forms scrutinized very carefully
next year."
Defending the agencies' use of strategic bombers in
That works out to about $50/server...which as I recall is a little less than the typical 'boxed set' price for any linux distribution.
So, essentially, EV1 just bought 20,000 boxes of "Caldera OpenLinux". Boy, what a "Big Win(tm)" for SCO there. That's quite a discount from the $700 (isn't it supposed to have gone up to $1400 by now?) per server fees they claimed they wanted to demand.
Hacker Public Radio is our Friend
ping www.sco.com
...
PING www.sco.com (127.0.0.1) 56(84) bytes of data.
64 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=1 ttl=64 time=0.125 ms
64 bytes from localhost (127.0.0.1): icmp_seq=2 ttl=64 time=0.104 ms
nick
Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp
What does this SCO license do for EV1's relationship with RedHat?
They clearly can't have the license with RedHat and SCO at the same time... so are they going to have to ditch RedHat?
Will RedHat come after them for signing this agreement?
How does this agreement affect the lawsuit between RedHat and SCO about undermining their relationship with customers?
Who wants to be the first to write to EV1Servers.net to tell them to cease using Linux? Paying SCO for a GPL-incompatible license to Linux invalidates the license they have to use and distribute Linux. If it were my intellectual property they were stealing, I'd be on the phone to my lawyer right now.
Support SETI@home
I just hope the outrage over this move doesn't come in the form of a hurricane of DOS attacks on EV1 servers. ..no, but when the news hits slashdot.....
Which sounds better?
Robert Marsh, Head Moron
or
Robert Marsh, Dumbass-in-chief
?
I wish I was "desperate" (sic) too. That way I would have made a million dollars selling BS licences. Fucking way to print money.
If you have been overwhelmed by feelings of despair and/or anger, then...
do something about it.
1) Give money to the FSF, the EFF, or some other entity supporting free software and your rights online.
2) Write to your congress representative to do something about this (at the very least you can raise some awareness over the issue).
3) Relax and keep supporting the OSS/FS movement. Educate yourself with the facts and do not overreact.
At any rate though, do something to help the community fight this battle (see notes 1, 2 and 3).
..these people really have no sense of the ridiculous. Makes you wonder about their other business decisions, or even how they percieve the world in general (the generally accepted colour of a clear, daytime sky is blue right?). Are these people allowed to vote?
Spineless sheep.
to: headsurfer@ev1.net
.
Dear Sirs,
It is with astonishment that we learn about your agreement with the SCO group regarding their alleged Intellectual Property rights over the Linux Source Code.
These claims by the SCO group have yet to be proven, and, though a final verdict has not been issued by a judge, there is an overwhelming amount of evidence mounting against their claims, or their good faith (or lack thereof) available all over the Internet. I suggest You have a look at www.slashdot.org or at www.groklaw.net
We, as a customer of Yours (id XXXXXX, host XXXXXX) are frankly surprised about how money collected from us is used and cannot accept to be even indirectly financing the SCO group's lawsuits against basically the rest of the world.
Until today we have been a perfectly satisfied customer of yours, with record uptime, not a single connectivity problem and no complaints whatsoever, but, sadly, regardless of this we feel forced to take action and vote with our money.
We are already considering alternative hosting solutions with partners which do not support a company whose lack of ethics and moral standards put Enron to shame.
Please reconsider your actions and issue a public statement about this.
Should You decide not to do so, You've just lost a customer. April will be our last month of hosting with rackshack/EV1 and we will stop directing our customers in need of hosting to your website.
Yours Truly
-----
Gianluca Marcari - Un*x and Networking Xpertise Tel +39 33 55 444 545
netXpertise s.r.l. - http://www.netXpertise.com - Via F.Satolli N.16 - 00165 Roma
Sede Operativa: Via Callegati N.41 - 48023 Ravenna Fax: +39 0544 538 034
Vacuum cleaners suck. Kings rule.
A bit dated and quite off-topic:
Dilbert Comic by Scott Adams, March 29th, 1993
Scene: Dogbert is a television news reporter, last frame.
Ref: Still Pumped From Using The Mouse, A DILBERT Book by Scott Adams, p. 65
(I could not find a link.)
..its kinda like, the morning after the iron curtin opened, and you find yourself in bed with some fat Russian woman...
Download the kernel source onto your machine and compile it. Now the binary-only runtime license is being violated. Report them to SCO, BSA, DOJ, etc.
That sure is a valuable piece of email that EV1 bought from SCO.
Hi,
I currently own more than half the code in Linux (or maybe I don't). Either way, CAN YOU TAKE THAT RISK? That's what I thought. You're scared, and rightfully so. I might have a lawyer, who uses big words to confuse you.
So avoid all those problems today! All you have to do is to send me a check for $100,000 and I promise not to bother you again!
I am pretty sure that you will agree with me that even though I have absolutely no evidence to support my claim (or did I even make a claim?), I just might have evidence somewhere. I obviously have a computer, so I could be a programmer. Again, CAN YOU AFFORD TO TAKE THAT RISK?
So, act fast, as my completely non-refundable licenses for Linux code that I might or might not actually own are going fast. You don't want to be the only hosting service without one of my licenses, do you? What will the other companies think of you?
Act now, and I'll send you a FREE blender and a matching toaster oven! (Please add $1,000 to cover shipping and handling of the toaster and blender).
Best wishes,
Anonymous Coward
Although recently we've switched to a Managed dedicated server package from Schuland-Partner AG (1and1) for not much more than we were paying. Yes we lost some control, but as our sites are ecommerce-based we were loosing time and money running our own self-managed solutions. Now they worry about the firewall and we worry about making sales. Works out better for us for 70 Euro a month.
"The problem with socialism is eventually you run out of other people's money" - Thatcher.
Why not just strip out the portions of Linux identified by SCO as their ip property. Release it as Linux lite and continue from there. Berkely did it ten years ago and now we have all the *BSD's.
Time for FreeLinux to catch up with FreeBSD?
Didn't EV1 just revoke their own right to use (or at least distribute) Linux? Since they have attached extra provisions to the GPL (which is forbidden) for themsleves, and since they license access to others they are, by extension, acting to add provisions to the GPL for those other persons...
Didn't they just lose their license outright?
Someone should send them 20,000 copyright violation notices.
Innocent people shouldn't be forced to pay for inferior software development.
--"Code Complete" Microsoft Press
Every single contributer to the linux kernel should now contact EV1 and demand payment for their IP, for a license other then the GPL.
Linus himself should ask for $10k per license, or have them shut down every single linux server.
They should do that tomorrow.
In the legal world mitigate means to reduce or avoid damages. Basically a person who claims damages as the result of a wrongful act has the right to seek compensation for such damages. However they have the obligation to "mitigate" said damages - in other words the plantiff has the duty to minimize the damages that occour.
For example if a shop owner had his window broken by a thug he could sue that thug for the replacement of the window. However if he left the window unfixed and occoured aditional damage over time from water, robery etc. he would not have the right to sue for such damages.
Mitagating damages has nothing to do with providing reasonable proof of you claim, that's what the courts are for. By informing linux users that they believe they are infringing upon their IP the have attempted to mitigate the damages that such users would be liable for.
Hey clusterfuck,
/. to troll, shill or both?
You use terms like "linux zealot" when you talk over on the ev1 forums but you seem to be quite the ass kisser over here. I have heard that when one talks to hunchbacks you should talk in a hunchback way. So do you subscribe to
If they part with their money that easily, I have this offer that they can't refuse. For a moderate, let's say 7-figure sum, I'm willing to part with this 300 feet iron tower I acquired some time ago. The tower is situated in Paris and atracts lots of tourists. Respond soon...
EVi1Servers.net
You can not sell, what you don't own.
The site where: "I'm right, as long as you ignore the things that prove me wrong", became a valid method of debate.
Spammy probably bought the license to keep anyone from looking TOO closely at how EV1 does business.
Are you related to Xenomorph by any chance?
Just curious..
cool. we're slashdot number neighbors, or something.
So you prefer to buy the toys a little cheaper, and don't mind that the low price can only be achieved by producing in countries without proper regulations to protect employees from being exploited (and often enough it's not even the customer benefiting from the low production costs, it's some shareholders.
At the same time you probably lament that your rights are eroded more and more "so we can compete with those chinese guys" and still you have to fear losing your job.
"It isn't that horrible in the greater scheme of things", Well, that makes me wonder how big you think. I think the future of Linux, especially as an exemplary case for the future of OSS and the philosophy behind that is pretty big. And EV1 paying up to SCO and giving SCOs case some imaginary "legitimacy", let alone more money to pay more lawyers to drag this out even longer is an important piece in this puzzle.
Yeah, maybe it is hard to find a good webhost, and a lot of trouble it is too. But it's a lot less trouble to write them an e-mail telling them what you think about their decision. Aparently EV1 cares about their customers, so maybe you should help them at least to get the complete picture of what you, their customer, is thinking. They can probably piece it together themselves, and maybe refrain from prolonging that licence or letting their name be abused in more SCO FUD.
"By the way if anyone here is in advertising or marketing... kill yourself." -- Bill Hicks
This was just another way to get in the news. There must have been a day with no SCO news. When is someone going to make slandering your opposition illegal. Well, since it isn't; I heard Bill Gates and Darl McBride are gay pedophiles. I wonder, does Melissa call him "Longhorn" Bill?
EV1 Forum (text below, emphasis added)
.. who would have figured that one) There is significant risk on both sides of this equation.
03-02-2004 06:48 AM
Additional Headsurfer Comments Regarding SCO Contract
By now, many of you have heard of our[sic] agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.
We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat.
We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.
We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.
It has been argued by a Linux Journal reporter that I have essentially called the various GPL Linux developers plagiarists[sic]. This is false as I would never make such a claim against them. They are some of the brightest minds for whom I hold a great deal of respect.
Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.
We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.
HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.
Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO has said will increase. These suits have a very real and significant cost, even if proven unsuccessful. These are costs we were prepared to bear as we did in the Free Speech case with CI Host. the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action. While our decision may not be popular, it does ensure that our customers (to the extent that they operate servers in our data centers) are protected from action by SCO with respect to those servers.
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case
In every step building the EV1 business, I've had to make decisions that I believed in my heart were in the best interests of my clients and my shareholders. My team and I have worked to bring the best possible service at the best possible price to our customers. In this case, the same decision making tools were employed and only after significant thought and analysis, an action taken.
As a result of this action, our customers can be assured that as these cases work their way through the legal system, that they[sic] have no worry that SCO will take action against them for servers in our data centers.
I do appreciate the positive comments and emails that many of you have sent as I also understand the negative positions that others have taken. We are fortunate to live in a country where it is possible to speak your mind freely.
Robert Marsh
Head Surfer
.... that you ARE a hosting customer and you have a Linux box.
Torvalds notices a bug in the kernal (like the local root exploit recently) and releases a patch, or you want to apply some configuration option to the kernel to give it booster rockets, or maybe you want to give 2.6 a try.
Its my understanding (and I'm sure there are many people here who can confirm or deny this on my behalf) that these things are done by COMPILING a new KERNEL. Thats means making changes to the Source code via patches, scripts and what-not and CHANGING the Object Code to which the licence applies.
It's been noted in this thread that EV1 used to help people with this kind of thing, are they able to carry on providing this assistance? or do they have to deny all knowledge and remind you that you are "infringing SCOs copyrights" when you do this?
I should think they do, since they have acknowledged that they believe SCO has copyrights, that the material is in Linux and they have a signed a contract restricting their rights and in turn YOUR RIGHTS under the GPL.
Remember these are dedicated boxen and people will want to do a bit more with them than normal web hosting and will require superior performance and security.
Compare this situation with a host that continues to refute SCOs claims and seeks to wait until the allegations are proven. What sway have SCO to say that can or cannot apply that Kernal update? None, and in truth they will always have no sway in this becaue its all FUD!
SJG
IANAL the above is educated speculation - you decide if I speak well or ill. My opinion is just that.
With a company that gullible, we should all demand our $699/server from them. Cool