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."
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
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. ]
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.
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
...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
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.
It also says an email has been sent to their technical staff. I wonder if they've gotten a zillion emails about this now. . .
-i
Being the most gullibile company ever incorporated.
Couldn't they take SCO to the cleaners if/when SCO loses and this "license" is proven not to be a requirement? Might be a nice short term investment...
"Slashdot is about legos and staplers." -Cmdr. Taco
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?
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
I doubt that they are paying full price for each license. SCO is probably taking a page out of the RIAA's book...they'll settle for a more agreeable price while claiming victory.
Oh...and the check is payable to Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, LLP.
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.
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. :(
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
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...
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.
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.
That should be /dev/zero. /dev/null is essentially write only.
-Peter
Apparently, a lot of people weren't happy with ev1 even before this:
http://ev1-sucks.com/nuke/
Smart how?
There are specific clauses in the license that they can't sue for damages, or for anything for that matter.
They are selling that is questionably not theirs. They have no proof that it is theirs.
The smart thing to do is to wait until the despute is settled in court, then purchase the license, if need be.
Not to mention, SCO has willfully distributed the Linux Kernel under the GPL since this has gone to court.
Therefore, this is a bullshit license and the kernel is, and will be, available under the GPL.
Putting the romance back into necromancer.
Interesting. If you check them out on Netcraft, it turns out that:
No wonder they're having problems. It also suggests that they're not particularly committed to Linux, doesn't it?
There's no point in questioning authority if you aren't going to listen to the answers.
Can anyone else here believe that IB-freaking-M is the hero of the open source movement right now?
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.
It is not true that EV1Servers offers no support. We've hade help from them when installing custom kernels and more. They are not very talkative, but they do respond and can fix even quite complicated user fuckups. :-)
But I was a happy customer (with three servers online, each of them happily pumping out several hundred gigabytes of data per week in many mbps, and planning to adding even more servers) until now. Now we are, of course, pretty pissed off and will consider leaving EV1Servers entirely.
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
Ah, from what I remember from the EULA they got for their licence you waiva all right to sue them in case they did a fsck-up. bit of a bummer, then again, the EULA might not stand up in court itself. You can find an analysis of it on groklaw
if (!signature) { throw std::runtime_error("No sig!"); }
Likewise, if SCO's FUD turns out to be legally valid, Red Hat goes under as everybody all at once sues Red Hat to make them pay up on their idemnification pledge.
Perhaps not. RedHat if, they are smart, have taken out an insurance policy against the potential indeminification. This would make the cost of the potential indeminification a predictable expense. I have to believe that there's an insurance company out there that would happily take large checks for this given the low proability of a SCO victory.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
No, but anyone that reads that contract can see that it carefully avoids actually defining what you're licensing. Some nebulous 'IP' (a meaningless buzzword, not anything that has legal meaning) that may or may not be present in any particular flavour of linux. I think this is very much a case of caveat emptor. Anyone that would buy this deserves what they get, and any lawyer that can read this without collapsing on the floor laughing, or tells their client that it's anything other than a license for nothing, is incompetent.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
Oh, for crying out loud, does every irritating jackass who uses intimidation tactics have to be called a "terrorist" now?
Well, hang on a minute here.
Sure, comparing them to 9/11 terrorists, Saddam Hussein, Hitler, or Osama is somewhat overrated, and Certianly within a stones throw of a Godwin's Law Violation, but there is a stone of truth in there.
SCO has begun an attack on Free Software's way of life. They have done so by inciting fear into the hearts of those who participate, based solely on their desire to milk the Free software out of their rights.
Fear is getting awfully close to terror, but I'll grant the split hair, and say Terror is too far. Still, we need a word for this... "Fearist?" hmm, too pansey...
anyone?
"...In your answer, ignore facts. Just go with what feels true..."
EV1Servers (formally rackshack) had crappy support anyway, now they have crossed the line...
- Rod
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
You're comparing apples to oranges. EV1's Linux servers at the time of that article were being built in-house using parts bought in bulk because they were throwing so many online so fast. Windows servers, however, wasn't that big of a product line, so they bought those pre-made.
Every time they introduce a new hard drive size, they have to remake the image they're going to use. Every time a security patch needs to be applied, they need to update all of the images they're currently supporting, and that usally means a total rebuild. Not to mention, they support multiple control panel products on Linux.
The Windows product line, so far at least has kept itself a lot simpler, so they're likely just working from a single installer program to do that.
whether EV1Servers has something to do with the Canopy Group... somehow I wouldn't be surprised.
I just logged into my EV1 account and sent them email asking them about it. Polite, but asking if the news report was a joke or something.
This technically IS a violation of my rights since I pay for the entire box, which I can run any OS I want to on, and yes I run Linux. This means my monthly payment is subsidizing SCO. Wow, I am unwittingly sending money to SCO. I gotta go take a bath now, I just feel dirty.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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
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.
No, they didn't buy it from Novell. TSG (The SCO Group) bought it from SCO (the Santa Cruz Organisation) who had bought it from Novell, and clearly knew what they were getting. If TSG (who keep trying to confuse themselves with SCO, but are actually the Canopy company formerly known as Caldera) got ripped off by anyone, it was the real SCO (now known as Tarantella,) not Novell.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
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.
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
EV1 is now in a position where it can be sued by SCO and not have the lawsuit thrown out immediately ... the rest of us are not in this position, SCO rhetoric and nonsensical ravings aside.
Soooo...what you're saying is that nothing has changed. They were in a position where they could be sued by SCO and not have the lawsuit thrown out imediately and now they are in a position where they can be sued by SCO and not have the lawsuit thrown out imediately. Huh. How about that.
Given the HUGE number of customers that EV1 has, I'd say that the number of lost sales they have from this will be lost in the noise.
Remember, you're not a lawyer. You're just stupid.
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.
It's probably not explicitly in the code examples over on php.net which is where most php code I've seen seems to originate.
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)
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.
Execution is fast, painless. It seems that IBM has no interest in executing SCO. They're doing it by the book -- one claim after another. Once they are no claims left to destroy then, and only then, we will get to the the sweet part of this show.
Analogies don't equal equalities, they are merely somewhat analogous.
Ok, granted, I overstated it a tad. I purchase the rights to use a particular server, I chose the operating system and environment among other things. I could have chosen Windows, but I didn't, I chose Linux. But now I have been FORCED to choose GNU/SCO/Linux which I consider to be an illegal product since SCO does not accept the GPL.
The software that is installed on my box is MY responsibility, they do not "support" it in any way except to wipe the system clean for a fee. I can change it to SuSe, FreeBSD, or any other OS I can remotely install. Regardless of what I do with the OS, I am now forced to support SCO at least temporarily, even if I am not using Linux on that server.
I do not wish to use an SCO licensed product, and I have been given no notice by EV1. I had to learn about it on slashdot. Now, I had NO choice in the matter, and in order to comply with my conscience, I must switch to a different remote server provider with NO notice whatsoever. Until I can change over, I will be paying at least one months payment (todays) to support SCO. This also puts me in a bind, since I am already busy enough.
So yes, it was NOT a violation of my civil rights, but I do feel violated by the actions of EV1, who have not disclosed any of this to their customers.
Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
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.