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.""

Comments

The CEO can't afford a spellchecker?

[gentlemoose]

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".

Re:We're being too hard on the guy

[gl4ss]

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.

Why he's an idiot (part 1 out of ...)

[ksp]

"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.

Re:It's a big deal for other reasons too

[inode_buddha]

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".

The most probable possibility

[RoLi]

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.

His customers and he are already covered; so WHY?

[leonbrooks]

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?"

EV1Server Refugee

[xheliox]

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.

Microsoft + SCO + EV1 = anti-trust

[glassesmonkey]

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

My Response

[Bob9113]

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