Slashdot Mirror
EV1 Servers CEO Responds To Customers
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.""
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?
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?
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."
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 $60 million on hand ", I couldn't take it any longer.
By all means, everyone, give your money to EV1 Servers, the company with a flair for... damn. I can't think of anything relevant to rhyme with "flair".
for losses through an insurance company, for less.
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
except that now they're just opened the door for getting sued. the 'license' doesn't protect you from being sued, in fact it does just the opposite.
he probably just paid diddly on the licenses which brings an intresting point to taken into consideration: what is the REAL price of sco IP license, 6.99? or 0.699? since nobody is going to buy it at 699$ 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.
"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
If I am to believe this post from groklaw:
0 12 4-1.html (hint why they
8 2,55795, 00.html
6 49 88318651.html (hackers and
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/14
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/0,12
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/2003/10/02/10
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
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.
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.
versus
Unless it is substantially different from this, the clauses of the license make this pretty impossible.
What am I missing?
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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
"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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just sent the following to EV1:
l ldf_des cription.html
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/
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
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
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?
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?