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
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. ]
...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
...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.
I was thinking about EV1Servers but went with Server Matrix instead. The prices are comparable and they give you more bandwidth.
"People that quote themselves in their signatures bother me" - athakur999
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)
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."
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...
It'd be a shame to see that happen to a nice little company like yours... (/mobster voice)
Tongue-in-cheek, folks!
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
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.
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
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
ServerMatrix
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.
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
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?
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.
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
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").
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.
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.
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!!!
Nice little hosting business you have here. It would be a shame if an unfortunate accident were to befall it...
I suffer from attention surplus disorder.
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.
...that even a blind squirrel can find a nut from time to time...
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]
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 addition to the fact EV1Servers is supporting SCO, it has just been neatly demonstrated EV1Servers is incapable of standing up to a slashdotting.
Not so. Look at EV1's MRTG graphs -- there isn't even a blip from the slashdot effect.
All that has been demonstrated here is that the server which runs EV1's forum isn't capable of handling the load... as long as you're not hosting your web site on that server, there is no problem.
Tarsnap: Online backups for the truly paranoid
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.
-
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.
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.
EV1Servers (formally rackshack) had crappy support anyway, now they have crossed the line...
- Rod
"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.
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.
> 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.
So what are the legal definitions of fraud and extortion?
IIRC for it to be fraud you have to show that SCO intentionally midled someone. As whacked as it may seem, its possible SCO actually believes what its saying and it would be almost impossible (IMO) to prove they don't believe what they're saying.
I'm thinking at best they might be able to recover the cost of the licenses, which probably wouldn't be woth the effort.
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.
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!!!
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.
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.
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.
"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.
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.
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)
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
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...
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?
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.
Actually, it was the Santa Cruz Operation, not Organization.
Too big to fail? Does that make me to small to succeed?