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
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
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.
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
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.
I've got a better plan. Why don't we let it slide and when this is all over hope that they've learned something. Whether they fell for the SCO BS or not they're technically still on "our" team aren't they?
If they're running Linux on anything (desktop, server, game cube, vibrating butt plug - it's been ported, whatever) then spare them the rightous anger and check the revolutionary zeal. Go boycott someone who's actually doing something to merit it (there are plenty of candidates)
Appended to the end of comments you post. 120 chars.
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.
Apparently, a lot of people weren't happy with ev1 even before this:
http://ev1-sucks.com/nuke/
I have an account on a box hosted at EV1. The owner of the box, a rather blatant Linux zealot, will not be happy to hear this news.
As soon as I get in touch with him, I'm asking him to move his sytem elsewhere. No way in hell is a dime of money from my hosting bills going to SCO.
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.
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..."
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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)