Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

EV1 Servers CEO Responds To Customers

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the this-can't-be-good dept.

Retalin writes "EV1 CEO Robert Marsh gave his customer base a written explanation for the purchase of his decision to purchase a SCO License late last night. The most interesting quote was this: "It has been argued by a Linux Journal reporter that I have essentially called the various GPL Linux developers plaugerists. This is false as I would never make such a claim against them. They are some of the brightest minds for whom I hold a great deal of respect.""

49 of 537 comments (clear)

  1. Still looking for facts on.. by superhoe · · Score: 1, Interesting

    .. how big percentage of the 20000 servers is actually Linux

    --

    -el

  2. What they did by millahtime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    What they did is called CYA.

    Are they one of the top companies that SCO might end up sueing? If so, then it might be cheaper to buy the licenses than to fight a law suit.

    --
    Evolution or ID?
    1. Re:What they did by malchus842 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      No, more like paying the mob for protection. "Hey, that's a nice little datacenter you have there. Be a real shame if anything happened to it."

    2. Re:What they did by FatRatBastard · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Remember this though, they could have kept the whole thing confidential, just like the "other" companies SCO brags about. EV1 apparently have had no problem letting SCO use their name, which makes you wonder how sincere they are in their "gee, we really didn't want to do this but we needed to protect ourselves" plea.

  3. Don't kick me but.... by millahtime · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Wouldn't a cheaper solution than buying the licenses have been so switch from linux to freebsd? With the cost of those licenses being so high. Then no fear of law suit. This seems like it could be the more cost effective solution.

    mods: Don't mod me troll for asking a question

    --
    Evolution or ID?
  4. Well.. by lukewarmfusion · · Score: 4, Interesting

    He certainly has a point.
    Civil disobedience is not a good business model. On the other hand, that's an awfully hefty fee to shell out. $1 Million? That could probably help to line some lawyers' pockets.

    Consider this, though: They care enough about their customers and their own business that they're willing to take this "voluntary" hit of over a million bucks just to protect themselves and their customers. Even if SCO isn't right (preaching to the choir, I know) then they've still made a major step in the direction of "we'd take a bullet for you."

    1. Re:Well.. by daviddennis · · Score: 2, Interesting
      Your tinfoil hat may actually have a point.

      One might note that:

      • Their home page runs on a Windows server
      • They highlight a "Windows Server Package" (on unknown hardware) for $89 a month on the top of their home page.
      • All their other packages are more expensive. For instance, "Intel Celeron 1.7ghz" is $89/month for Windows Server 2003. It's $99 a month for a Celeron 1.3ghz and Red Hat.
      Looks like someone got a pretty generous discount on Windows Server 2003 licenses, doesn't it?

      So much for being a friend of Linux!

      D

  5. CYA by hookedup · · Score: 2, Interesting


    Cover Your Ass.

    It strikes me that it's all he is really trying to accomplish. For himself, and his customers.

    1. Re:CYA by nuffle · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a big difference between covering your ass and folding in the face of remote, unfounded threats. Has CEO "HeadSurfer" paid off the mafia? Has he given the protection money to the Yakuza contacts? Giving money to SCO is just as inane and reckless.

      As long this guy is so willing to shell out big money to people brandishing idiotic threats, I may as well take a stab at it: Headsurfer! I have intellectual property in the linux kernel. Pay me $100,000 (I'm reasonable) and I promise not to sue.

  6. The CEO can't afford a spellchecker? by gentlemoose · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For God's sake. While I realize the bulk of you asshats can't spell your way out of a paper bag, one might expect that the CEO of nearly any corporation would care enough about his company's public image to run a public statement by *somebody* with an eye for grammar and spelling before publishing it on the net.

    The 10-second perusal:
    oru
    indictment on Red Hat
    fullly
    plaugerists (I can't work out how to pronounce this one...)
    SCOs ...
    I give up. Once I hit "SCO already has like $60 million on hand ", I couldn't take it any longer.

    By all means, everyone, give your money to EV1 Servers, the company with a flair for... damn. I can't think of anything relevant to rhyme with "flair".

    1. Re:The CEO can't afford a spellchecker? by Jerf · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I would like to suggest that most of us asshats know not to put a space before quotes and not to put punctuation outside quotes.

      The first one is still legit. The second criticism is out-of-date. That is called "logical quoting" as explained by the Jargon Dictionary, and I have indeed started to see it in significant and serious use outside of the Hacker community as well.

      Remember the rule wasn't grammatical but typographical in the first place, and logical quoting is more expressive.

      Lately I've taken it to the logical conclusion, and if quoting somebody's exclamation, I will do it like this: He said, "Oh my gosh that hurts!". That's right, I don't allow the quote's punctuation to terminate my sentence, because I'm not exclaiming. Your English teacher may not like it, but by the metrics of "range of expression" and "logical consistency", my way is better, and I think in the end as the typographical issues fade this is how it's going to be.

      (Remember the Rule of Breaking Rules: "You may break a rule if you understand it.". I understand this rule and its history quite well.)

      And finally, there is a difference between a Slashdot posting and a CEO's communication ;-) I'd never use a smiley in a corporate communication, and I'd never write a comment inside of Mozilla's text box without spell-checking support. But it's not worth the effort to do any better for a Slashdot comment.

  7. I wonder if they coulda insured themselves by way2trivial · · Score: 4, Interesting

    for losses through an insurance company, for less.

    --
    every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
  8. Re:We're being too hard on the guy by gl4ss · · Score: 5, Interesting

    except that now they're just opened the door for getting sued. the 'license' doesn't protect you from being sued, in fact it does just the opposite.

    he probably just paid diddly on the licenses which brings an intresting point to taken into consideration: what is the REAL price of sco IP license, 6.99? or 0.699? since nobody is going to buy it at 699$ per cpu...

    (however they might think of it as an insurance AND extra publicity and leading some customers into thinking it's an insurance)

    and point b: THEY'RE NOT SMALL! THEY'RE NOT A SMALL STARTUP! THEY COULD HAVE DEFENDED THEMSELFS EASILY IF THEY EVER HAD GOTTEN SUED(besides, rhat would have been the one to sue!)!

    point c: of this bs-graph is that they've been willing to do some poster childing before and maybe thought this time too that free pr couldn't hurt.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  9. Why he's an idiot (part 1 out of ...) by ksp · · Score: 5, Interesting

    "We did, however, license certain IP from SCO."

    And what IP may that be? Elaborate, please. What does SCO own that you had to pay for when you are using Red Hat Linux, from a company that will cover the risk for you?

    I wonder what long-term consequences this has for EV1 when they publically say that they believe SCO is right and their server OS (Linux) was more or less pirated from SCO. I suspect that no matter what the result of the trial is, this guy is f*cked because he signed SCOs papers.

    --
    What is the sound of one hand clapping?
    cat /dev/null > /dev/audio
  10. Re:Full Text by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The simple fact stands that they have been the only people who have chosen to support what appears to be a SCO, an apparently criminal organisation. They have been the people who have sent people to be in a press conference with SCO.

    On Zdnet we can find that their CEO, "Marsh was in San Francisco on Monday with SCO Group CEO Darl McBride".

    Do not just boycott EV1. Boycott anybody who remains their customer after next month. Contact anyone you know who works with EV1 and tell them you do not believe in supporting SCO extortion.

    Knowingly supporting such activities is in its self bad. Buying from thieves causes theft.

  11. Re:It's a big deal for other reasons too by inode_buddha · · Score: 5, Interesting

    If I am to believe this post from groklaw:

    Weeding through the noise at Yahoo, I found this from one of the dependable
    regulars:

    About EV1
    by: korbomite
    Long-Term Sentiment: Strong Sell 03/01/04 09:36 pm
    Msg: 100568 of 100685

    EV1 has become famous as a porn hosting site:

    http://hosts4porn.com/profiles/ev1.cfm

    and

    http://www.webhostingtalk.com/archive/thread/140 12 4-1.html (hint why they
    changed their name from RackShack--their IP address was blackholed for porn
    spamming)

    and

    From Wired Magazine:

    QUOTE
    Since mid-September, numerous myNetWatchman participants have received repeated
    probes on port 135 from a handful of Internet protocol addresses assigned to
    Everyones Internet (EV1.net), an Internet service provider in Houston, according
    to Baldwin. The numeric addresses translate into "NetBIOS machine
    names" that begin with WEBPOPUP and that have appeared in several recent
    ads, he said...EV1.net officials, who did not respond to interview requests, are
    investigating the issue, according to Baldwin...Now that spammers have pioneered
    the Windows Messenger technology, worm writers may be next to target the
    service, according to Harlan Carvey, a security engineer with a financial
    services firm..."I'm sure we're going to see spyware or malware that makes
    use of this," Carvey said.
    ENDQUOTE

    from
    http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,128 2,55795, 00.html

    and

    http://jdo.org/hamas.html (That's right: Hamas and the al Aqsa Martyrs' Brigade
    terrorists use EV1 as their ISP and hosting provider)

    and

    http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2003/10/02/106 49 88318651.html (hackers and
    Trojan writers)

    k

    #END

    Truth is definitely stranger than fiction. It would seem that both companies
    figured that they could get some mileage out of the license deal if they spun it
    the right way (and the truth and backroom dealing would only stay quiet). After
    all, reports have it that Marsh and McBride were pal-ling around in California
    during the past week at a trade show.

    The tinfoil hat in me says "Follow the money".

    --
    C|N>K
  12. small fee? by Mr_Silver · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Other have claimed that we're essentially funding SCOs various lawsuits. This is not true. SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far

    Oh I don't know. $1m seems like it'll go pretty far however big the size of your company.

    --
    Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
  13. The most probable possibility by RoLi · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Let's face it. Nobody in their right mind would pay SCO million(s) for their license, especially EV1servers who are RedHat customers and are protected from SCO through RedHats programme: link

    The only possibility that makes sense in my opinion is that EV1servers dealings with Microsoft included the SCO-deal as well. Microsoft has a strong interest to channel money to SCO, they have already done so by buying licenses from them they don't need.

    So I think EV1servers has essentially become Microsoft's cash pipeline to SCO.

    There just is no other way that makes sense. Please don't forget that RedHat protects their customers (like EV1servers) from SCO, so even if EV1servers pretends to think that SCO has a chance and even if they pretend to think that they have to pay before the trial is over, they simply don't need a license.

  14. Can't work that way can it? by hauer · · Score: 4, Interesting
    As far as I understand from reading the SCO license, you cannot have it both ways:

    We license Linux through Red Hat. They provide our distribution and support/updates for the Enterprise distribution. Plus, they do an awesome job at delivering. Their support and dedication is second to none. Our agreement with SCO is in no way any kind of indictment on Red Hat. [...]

    versus

    We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.


    Unless it is substantially different from this, the clauses of the license make this pretty impossible.

    What am I missing?

  15. Create a new option for companies like EV1 by spells · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Insurance. Some companies are protecting their clients from SCO IP suits, why not pay insurance to a third party to CYA rather than to SCO?
    If one of the big insurance firms analyzed SCO's suit and calculated the odds of SCO winning, they might be able to offer insurance to these companies at a similar price to the extortion being paid to SCO. Everyone wins, companies can say they did their due diligence and SCO does NOT get a dime until they prove themselves in court.

  16. What's legal about this? by Durzel · · Score: 2, Interesting

    One thing I don't understand, forgive me if this has been touched on before, is how SCOX can offer licenses based on as yet legally unproven information? I could understand SCOX charging for IP licenses after a successful court ruling, and EV1 opting to purchase said license(s) to indemnify themselves against prosecution after the event.. but before? It makes no sense.

    And how is charging real money on the basis of an unresolved case even legal?

    Anyway, what sort of company pays out protection money to another company when there is no actual proven threat of damage should they fail to? The Mafia could learn a lot from SCOX it would seem, as they appear to have mastered the "insurance" racket without actually having tangible muscle.

  17. anybody pull out of EV1 over this? by joejor · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I am not an EV1 customer, but if I were, their action would prompt me to immediately seek a new provider.
    If they took my fees, turned around and handed it to SCO, oooooh, I'd be livid.

    Business reasons blah, blah, blah ...
    I cannot stand the idea of giving SCO money, even through a proxy.

  18. Re:another reason to avoid them by tiger99 · · Score: 2, Interesting
    To amplify one point they bought a bogus licence from someone who quite clearly has no right to sell it. That is the whole point, what SCO did was fraudulent because their licence to use any GPL code has terminated, because they attempted to place restrictions on others, the only thing that the GPL prohibits. Every copy of SCO Unix they sell is also illegal, same reason. Anything sold or licensed by SCO to anyone, anywhere, is a straightforward case of copyright violation, because all of their products contain GPL code, and they have no valid licence to distribute it.

    Basically it has sunk to the level of a protection racket, and this coward has fallen for it. Protection rackets happen because the victims are too spineless to report the matter to the proper authorities.

    Is it illegal to buy something which violates copyright, or just to sell? It may be that this guy is in fact breaking the law.

  19. His customers and he are already covered; so WHY? by leonbrooks · · Score: 5, Interesting
    EV1, porn capital and Windows Popup spammer extraordinaire, is the end user here. EV1, not the customers, would get sued. And since they use Red Hat, they're indemnified even if TSG win their barratrous suit. They had nothing to gain by paying the Danegeld, so why did they do it? Evidently Mister HeadSurfer plans to get the money back somehow, all we need to do is find out how and we can probably blow TSG's racket right open.

    EV1 don't give you a discount for choosing a FreeBSD server instead of MS-Windows 2003 or Red Hat Enterprise server. Why not?

    EV1 were one of the first big rollouts of MS-Windows 2003, does this suggest anything to you about their real feelings? As in, "We'd love to go all Windows, Bill, but our customers aren't interested. Is there anything else we can do for you? Help out a friend?"

    --
    Got time? Spend some of it coding or testing
  20. In Other News by Slavinski · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The Mafia received full exercisable business
    license to operate across the nation extorting
    money from whomever they feel.

  21. EV1Server Refugee by xheliox · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We made the switch last night to ServerMatrix.com. Hopefully they won't screw over the Linux community too.

    We had a total of 3 servers with EV1 which will all be offline by the end of the month. Certainly my 3 servers will not hurt them, but hopefully many more are taking similar actions.

    EV1 has made untold amounts of money off of Linux and then to sell it down the river without a fight is just plain wrong. There's no other way to say it.

  22. The legal cost of being sued is zero by lma · · Score: 3, Interesting
    OSDL has put in place a legal defense fund whose purpose is to reimburse legal expenses of companies in this position so that their cost to defend a lawsuit is zero.

    Paying SCO before the legal issues have been resolved is a waste of money since companies can turn to OSDL to reimburse their legal costs. This was a bad business decision.

    Larry

  23. Microsoft + SCO + EV1 = anti-trust by glassesmonkey · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Had to repost this brillant post from previous EV1 story.

    by ImpintheBox (153919) on Mon Mar 01, '04 02:00 PM (#8432077)

    Microsoft provides SCO $millions in loan cum licensing deal (to attack their No. 1 threat, Linux)

    EV1 has amazingly low, low pricing for Win2003 servers.

    Microsoft touts EV1 in Win2003/Linux case study.

    Netcraft names EV1 the top Win2003 hosting provider.

    EV1 buys SCO license in $million+ just days before Q1 conference call
    and on the day of the PIPE and Boies deals deadline

  24. Headsurfer. by 13Echo · · Score: 2, Interesting

    The "Headsurfer" needs to turn his surfboard around and drift out to sea.

    He claims to be supporting his customers, but in reality he's done nothing more than strengthen SCO so that they can carry on with these ridiculous claims and lawsuits a little longer. My hosting provider is an EV1 customer, and I'm already shopping for another provider.

    SCO has yet to present proof of their allegations. Numerous other countries' legal systems are essentially telling SCO to screw off because they are unable to present proof. Isn't that good enough, EV1? We all know that there is no "SCO IP" in Linux, and there never will be. EV1 made a mistake in supporting these criminals. Now, in my eyes, EV1 is a criminal company as well.

    Screw off, EV1. Hope your new data center gets wasted from lack of business.

  25. Affordable alternative? by BigGerman · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I have 3 boxes there and I want out.
    If anyone knows for a fact about some other hosting company with comparable prices / service, please post below.
    I am sure other /.ers would appreciate it too. No flames, just short info.

  26. Does not have the ring of truth by Tough+Love · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Apparently paid a million or more of but had access to a ten million
    legal defense fund, so I think this is a more likely explanation.

    Give this company no peace, something has passed under the table.

    --
    When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
  27. Why is this so hard to understand? by IANAAC · · Score: 4, Interesting
    This is all you need to say to SCO:

    "I did not purchase anything from you. My purchases are with RedHat. Please sue them, not me".

    End of story. Honestly, I don't understand why this is such a difficult concept for people to grasp - You don't give me anything, I don't pay you anything.

  28. Re:Eh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting
    if something happens and the tables turn, he's not going to be sued

    Oh, that's a stretch. Did you read the EULA?

    SCO may terminate this Agreement, upon reasonable notice and without judicial or administrative resolution, if You or any of Your employees or consultants breach any term or condition hereof.

    That's their get-out-of-jail-free card. They can terminate you "upon reasonable notice" and you may not ask for judicial (file for an injunction), nor ask for administrative (arbritration) relief.

    Also note that TSG does not provide you with the software they claim to license you. You have to get it from somewhere else -- someone who is not licensed to give you that software.

    All EV1 has done is make it easier for the McBride Brothers to sue them. And they've paid for the privilege, no less!

  29. Re:Grammar? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's the CEO going out of his way and posting his personal writing directly to a public forum, instead of releasing some spin-doctored piece of press-release rehash. I think the fact that it may have a few spelling errors gives it the 'personal touch' and lets us know that, yes, this guy is real, he has real feelings and real opinions, and he's not going to let someone speak for him. How many times have you fat-fingered a Slashdot post and missed a period or two in an effort to get your opinion heard?

  30. Re:There's a reason you're not a lawyer... by imkonen · · Score: 3, Interesting
    OFFERING BAD CONTRACTS TO PEOPLE (without misrepesenting them) WHO ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO SIGN THEM IS IMMORAL - NOT ILLEGAL.

    Isn't that the whole point? I agree that unfair contracts are legal, but it's still illegal to misrepresent the facts in order to get them signed. SCO stands to gain money from convincing people that Linux is corrupted with their IP, both in terms of selling liscences for IP in Linux, and from creating enough uncertainty in Linux's future that new businesses will consider just starting out with Unix...and a liscence purchased, of course, from SCO.

    If I tell you I own the Brooklyn Bridge, am planning to provide evidence of such ownership any day now, then tell you you can drive over my bridge any time you want for a mere $100 unlimited liscence... Aren't I commiting fraud? What if I add to that that the price will go up exhorbitantly once I've established my ownership in the courts, but you can get it on the ground floor now while it's still a good deal?

    Well calling it racketeering is probably a little overboard, but I think something in there has to be actually ILLEGAL as opposed to merely IMMORAL.

  31. Liars, Dumbasses and Fools by Queuetue · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh my!

    I'm amazed that a person with $1mm in cash to spend can't spell, reason, or defend themselves properly.

    I yesterday suspected that this was MS/SCO reverse astroturfing, and now, I see I was probably right . These EV-whatever guys are actually an MS Case Study, indicating how much easier it is to deploy and manage windows boxes over Linux ones.

    Case Study

    (Incidentally, these doofuses were using RH's kickstart instead of just copying a tarfile to the fresh box - that's how MS beat them.)

    This whole thing feels like a riculous show that got out of control. I am glad that I didn't choose them for a service provider - I'm in the market right now, and they saved me a phone call.

  32. Re:I'm sorry, but he's an idiot by Arker · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Oh they can rent out the systems they already have, perfectly legal. But a good case can be made that accepting this license terminated their GPL rights. And if it did... well they would still be legal if they bought a copy of Linux for every new computer they install it on, but we know for a fact that they use disk images nowadays, right? That's copying not necessarily allowed under default copyright law. Not a problem as long as you have a valid GPL, but if you've given the GPL up by taking another incompatible license to cover any portion of the Linux code... then it's copyright infringement.

    --
    =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
    Friends don't let friends enable ecmascript.
  33. Who else? by Queuetue · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Applying some guesswork and false logic, I can come to the inaginary conclusion that SCO has tried to make "sweetheart deals" with other Linux-using companies, and was turned down.

    If you know of any, please apply pressure to them to come forward and tell why they sent SCO packing - this story needs some anti-spin applied.

  34. Sent this to my hosting provider today: by ballpoint · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Dear Sirs,

    You may be aware that the SCO Group is offering a Linux IP 'License', and that this is seen by a large portion of the internet community as an attempt to threaten and extort Linux users. More information about this case can be found here: http://www.groklaw.com

    It is my opinion that entering a business relation with the SCO Group is a dangerous proposition. Therefore, as your customer, I would like to be assured that you have no plans to license anything from the SCO Group. If I do not receive this assurance in due time, I will be obliged to start contingency planning.

    Regards

    --
    Flourescent (adj): smelling like ground wheat.
  35. My Response by Bob9113 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Just sent the following to EV1:

    Hi,

    I rent one of your servers (the machine from which I'm sending this). I have been extremely pleased with your uptime, bandwidth, and pricing. I would like to remain a customer.

    I have read your open letter regarding the SCO license in the forums, and understand your position. I also think some of the counterpoints that have been made are quite valid. I think there is an easy way to recover the support of those who see Linux as an important part of the national and global economy.

    Please consider contributing to the OSDL's legal defense fund.
    http://www.osdl.org/about_osdl/legal/lldf/l ldf_des cription.html

    I will be on vacation until early next week. Upon my return, I will check the front page of your website. If there is a large public notice that you have given the OSDL's Linux Legal Defense Fund a contribution equal to or greater than the amount you paid SCO, I will be very happy to continue using your service.

    You have chosen to give money to highwaymen who have made baseless allegations about their ownership of some small portion of Linux. If you genuinely feel that SCO has earned your money, it seems abundantly clear that you owe far more to the people who actually wrote Linux. What better way to invest that money than in defending Linux from the same highwaymen that have just held you up at lawyerpoint?

    You currently pay Red Hat for their support services. According to the license under which Linux is distributed (including the license under which SCO distributes Linux), you do not have to pay for the intellectual property. If you choose to pay for the intellectual property rights to Linux, you should be paying the people who own those rights. In this case, that money can be best spent by defending those authors' right to their intellectual property.

    Thank you for your time,

    Robert Bushman

    --
    Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
    1. Re:My Response by lordkimbot · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Very good! The most intelligent response I've read so far today. It will be interesting to see if anyone picks up on this. It certainly illustrates a fallacy. Their business model relies on the hard work and creative talent of Linux developers, yet they make no effort to support Linux, beyond their Red Hat licenses. I hope this point gets legs.

      --
      sig mind freed
  36. What are the alternatives? by scarolan · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ok, I'm an EV1 customer and would like to bring my business elsewhere. What are my options? Here are a few competitors I checked out, can anyone suggest some more:

    ServerBeach.com
    1and1.com

    Features that are important to me are:

    * Reasonable pricing
    * 24/7 customer support - at least via email/chat if not by phone
    * Reliable company, good uptime record

  37. EV1 RedHat license termination? by kompiluj · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Should not Red Hat terminate EV1 license as Fyodor did with SCO?

    --
    You can defy gravity... for a short time
  38. Not really by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    "But boycotting a third party because they host with people who paid protection money to the criminals ... well, I think that's enough levels of indirection for even the most rabid C++ programmer."

    Well, EV1 is a haven for spammers and porn, so it won't be much of an effort to avoid their customers.

  39. no, Mr. Marsh, what you've done... by rbird76 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    is to ensure that this is an issue for your customers, and to put yourself and your company at great financial risk. In a previous post (post #8435019), I posited that going into business or establishing a contractual obligation with SCO puts EV1 at more risk rather than less from SCO. If that is correct, then EV1 has given away much of their defense (their ability to dismiss a lawsuit against them by SCO) and paid their attacker off (although considering SCO's plan of suing their customers, that doesn't seem like a good defense). This sounds like Czechoslovakia in 1938 claiming that giving up part of their land to Germany relieved them of worries about Germany's territorial ambition. That worked out so well for Czechoslovakia, didn't it?

    Then you are "vilified by some diehards within the industry"? No, you should be vilified for your stupidity. Paying SCO to avoid trouble in this case (where it would be both easier and more sensible to avoid it) is like committing suicide for fear of being murdered. You gave up your freedom to secure your safety only to have neither, all while putting you and your customers at risk. I can't fathom why you think this is a good idea - either your legal team failed their EEG tests or there is a big part of this that I am missing.

    If the legal opinion here is correct (and it's possible that it isn't), then what EV1 has done is increased the risk to itself while damaging its reputation among the people it advertises to and appeasing the demon of IT known as SCO. Is there any legal or business opinion in which context this makes sense?

  40. been there.... by ShadowBottle · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I've actually worked with Robert Marsh before. Do not even bother noticing this event. Where morals and ethics are involved, Mr. Marsh is a sailer, deep in the Atlantic, without a compass. I have seen him award employees (in person) for their "excellent customer service" skills in cash (in front of the entire company) only to have someone from finance force them to sign an agreement two days later that allows EV1 to add the award to their paycheck, remove it and then tax them for it (I guess $10,000 tax free in gift's a year isn't enough when it's going towards some mustangs huh Robert?). Or better yet, giving $1,000 to say three families whose entire lives were mangled by a pretty nasty flood in Houston, sending an email out to all your customers saying "Hey.. look what good guys we are, people that work here had problems just like you guys and we're helping them out, back patting all around!" Then, again, doing an about-face about three weeks later and saying "Oh yeah.. that uh.. thousand dollars? Yeah.. well most of that was a loan.. but that's ok! We can slowly take it out of your pay check until you pay us back." Yes, it may have been nice to do this to begin with, but you don't brag to all your customers that you -gave- these families a thousand dollars and then take most of it back from them. That has to be criminal on some level. Why didn't you tell your customers about that Robert? That you made most of it a loan? Anyway... I'm sure George or someone over at EV1 is seeing this. Just wanted to say that you guys actually made it fun and I still can't understand how Marsh got it to stay up this long.

  41. Re:Full Text by Reziac · · Score: 3, Interesting

    You are right, it is not your fault and you should not be unduly penalised for it -- IF you don't *support* EV1's decision to get in bed with SCO. And inability to quickly move your business elsewhere should not be held against you, either (whether for technical/manpower/resources reasons, or for having already paid for a package deal that you can't afford to blow off).

    But I think this points out a business opportunity for EV1's competitors: offer to engineer a seamless transistion from EV1 to another hosting service, with no loss of site uptime, as a sort of bonus for signing on with another company. This can be done with judicious use of mirrors and redirects, yes??

    Of course, businesses who DO support EV1's decision (whether they're stuck with the effects or not) may no longer deserve OUR patronage.

    --
    ~REZ~ #43301. Who'd fake being me anyway?
  42. Re:Some Questions for Mr. Marsh... by ArtDent · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Nonsense. Customers also foot the bill for EV1's servers, air-conditioning, security services, and so on. Should EV1 (or anyone else) be forced to disclose those costs? If not, why not? It's the same principle.

    The servers serve Web pages. The air-conditioning stops the servers from overheating. And so on. What does this "IP license" do? Allegedly, it makes customers feel better, it prevents worrying.

    Can you see the difference? Given that its value is, to be generous, questionable, I think it's quite reasonable for customers to ask just what is its cost.

    What's more, some customers may feel that it's value is negative: that it only serves to fund SCO's courtroom antics. Mr. Marsh tried to deflect such criticism by claiming that "our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one," but it's impossible to evaluate that claim without knowing the amount of the "small fee."

  43. Legal Warchest and Amnesty by BuckaBooBob · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Didn't redhat set up a warchest and a amnesty program to protect its client base from SCO? or was it that they were one of the odd commercial distro's that did not... but if they did opt out on this type of fund they really need to look at it again to prvent their client base from supporting SCO's actions... They need to stop their name from ending up in the press when someone does give into SCO FUD and pay the fee's...

    --
    Who needs WiFi when we can have Packet Over Sheep! http://datacomm.org/PoS-InternetDraft.txt