As Pepsi launches a new promotion... one in three bottle caps on specially marked bottles will win a free SCO license. Pepsi estimates that 90% of the wining bottlecaps will go unused because most of their market doesn't know what Linux even is...
If FreeS/WAN has neither secured the Internet, nor secured the right of US citizens to export software that could do so, it has still had positive benefit.
Talk about two goals that are just plain swimming uphill.
Getting the Internet to change what's not broken is very hard. The fact that our default mode of communications is plaintext doesn't quite scare most pointy haired bosses. They want their stuff secured, but there's no sense in switching protocols when we can just secure on top of the existing protocols with things like VPNs, SSH, PGP, SSL, etc.
Meanwhile, getting the government to lift the crypto-export bans just isn't going to happen either. September 11th, 2001 will always be brought up anytime anybody wants to loosen crypto rules. Being able to talk in a way that the US Government can't intercept and understand is something that truely scares the military and the CIA... because if they can't intercept communications, they lose one of their strongest tools in battle. Maybe the crypto-export rules are weak and aren't going to stop much, but at least it stops everything we can stop using a law, and that's better than zero.
So, another open source project with great ideas but not quite enough resources to get the job done packs it in. Oh, well. So it goes.
The only thing that can truely take care of spam is a protocol for the provider upstream of a user to be able to revoke an e-mail that passed through them. It means moving to an e-mail system that doesn't trust home e-mail servers that don't pass through a trusted company anymore.
Right now, any IP address holding computer has the ability to become a mail server, so any IP address holding computer has the ability to spew spam.
I don't think there's any law that says ISPs can't selectivly put people in certain IP ranges.
Yes. It's in the laws of physics. ISPs allocate IP blocks in geographic segments, otherwise you'll break routing as we know it. Simply put, the bigger the subnets, the less entries you need in the routing table. Having a subnet mask of 255.255.255.254 is just plain a path that leads to chaos.
Nope nope nope. The press release doesn't have a dollar figure. The CNET story says they got "high-volume discount". They didn't pay anything close to $699... don't be so stupid to assume the worst in every SCO release.
You're comparing apples to oranges. EV1's Linux servers at the time of that article were being built in-house using parts bought in bulk because they were throwing so many online so fast. Windows servers, however, wasn't that big of a product line, so they bought those pre-made.
Every time they introduce a new hard drive size, they have to remake the image they're going to use. Every time a security patch needs to be applied, they need to update all of the images they're currently supporting, and that usally means a total rebuild. Not to mention, they support multiple control panel products on Linux.
The Windows product line, so far at least has kept itself a lot simpler, so they're likely just working from a single installer program to do that.
They're not running Linux-with-Windows. Try actually reading the article you're linking to next time. They just finally got a Windows realtime-setup system that matches their Linux one after a lot of work and help from MS.
Nope. That's what a small regional ISP looks like. That's the line that's mostly used for outbound ISP use... and that's why it always has more coming in than going out.
I've heard good things about servermatrix from a lot of ex-rackshack users. YMMV, of course. Read the webhostingtalk forums.
Oh, and let's not forget that up until recently, Rackshack/EV1 owned the WebHostingTalk forums and it's still hosted there. What other company would be sure enough in itself to sponsor a forum where it's constantly bashed?:)
I'm not sure an entire dime of yours is involved. EV1Servers hosts over 20,000 servers and this license covers a new datacenter which when filled will have about 30,000 more. Some of these are even double-processor. That's a lot of servers to devide the money accross.
If they paid $150,000 for this "site license" (my estimate... considering that there's a "high-volume discount" and name-use rights involved) then we're talking $3 a server... and if your friend has 100 users on his box that's only three cents of your money involved. Not three cents a month, but three cents and it's over with, SCO can never bother with that server again.
You're going to have a hard time making that list without double-checking IP space. There are a lot of resellers "web hosts" who operate on servers leased from EV1servers and will even sub-lease an entire dedicated server to you at a profit.
They're also getting the kind of publicity money can't buy out of this... which they timed just as they're about to open a new datacenter. "Server farm you've never heard of pays off SCO" is a far better story than "Server farm you've never heard of opens second datacenter". EV1 can write this all off as cheap ads...
Compared to this bogus SCO license, how much would it have cost them to switch their servers to BSD or even Solaris?
Much more. Notice how EV1 isn't allowed to brag about the price they got out of SCO... just that they got a "huge-volume discount" off the regular price. This deal is not in the 8 figures, it's in the lower end of 6 figures...
Microsoft claims here that they considered Linux, but came back to Microsoft products in the end.
That's a bad summary of the article. EV1 has a great high-volume system for selling Linux dedicated servers in real time. They knew from their own web boards that some people wanted a hosting place as good as EV1 for Windows servers, but EV1 stalled forever because it just wasn't that easy to work with Windows.
Microsoft came in and gave them a great deal of support in setting up their existing order system to work with deploying Windows servers. They didn't throw any Linux servers out, and in fact they're still setting more up... they just were able to add Windows servers to their product lines and were actually able to make it work. Nobody's been able to match their $89/mo. price point on a true dedicated server that runs Windows yet.
EV1's the best in the business. They're not zealots towards any particular OS... they just have a reputation of keeping a large datacenter humming, and now they're about to have two.
Doubt it. EV1 paid for a site license covering both of their datacenters in a one-shot payment. I'm a customer, and I haven't seen anything about it being rolled into my fees...
I have the felling they paid closer to $6.99 a server than $699 a server.
The hosting company didn't get Slashdotted. The main website is up and it's just the one-server fourm that went down. (vBulletin can only get you so far...) I can ping my server that I have there just like nothing's going on.
And nobody should even bother to try to DDOS EV1Servers... They're swimming in bandwidth over there, and that doesn't even show the new datacenter that goes live later this week.
When SCO's FUD is proven to be legally worthless, SCOX stock will drop to absolute zero and the company will be bankrupt. There'd be nothing left to reclaim the money from.
Likewise, if SCO's FUD turns out to be legally valid, Red Hat goes under as everybody all at once sues Red Hat to make them pay up on their idemnification pledge.
SCO's game is one of legal deathmatch. A few bucks (not too many, just a few) is a good deal for somebody who wants to sit this whole thing out.
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.
Free speech is usually best when what's being said is true. In SCO's case, they're getting into the bad habbit of of annoucing a future action of theirs, and then not following through on it.
Say what you want about the RIAA, but at least when they threaten to sue somebody, they follow through on it. I don't see it as that bad a thing to require that when SCO announces they're going to file a lawsuit, they should at least have to do it. Afterall, a victory against just one defendant would legitimize SCO's main claim that they're owed money by everyone who loses Linux. However, if they lose, most of their FUD will be declared something that doesn't stand up in court.
Re:There is no "trial by media"
on
Germany Muzzles SCO
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
"Trial by media" is what results when there is so much media coverage of an event, it starts to affect the event itself. Sometimes it means that there's so much national media coverage of an event, it's impossible to find a jury that hasn't already started to form an opinion. Other times it means that a defendant who is found not guilty by the court has to deal with a public that thinks otherwise.
I honestly question why judges don't want cameras in their courtrooms. Every word that is said in that courtroom is still going to be talked about too much by the media anyway, so why deny the public the chance to see primary source material instead of leaving the public watching commentators alone?
The way to explain the Creative Commons system to a music artist is this: There are other artists out there who need source material to use in their works, but don't have the money to pay you right now. If you release your song under a CC Attribution and No Commercial Use license, fans can listen to you and movie makers might be able to include you in their early films. However, if that movie maker finally gets a hit and wants to make money with their early film that used you, they've got to come back to you and buy the rights then. If a radio station wants to play your song, they have to at least contact you to get your permission. It's giving other artists at the same level a way to audition for partners so that a collective work.
Record labels angle to get their artists into movies not for the royalty money, but because being used in a hit movie can bring attention to an otherwise unknown artist. Artists perform for free on talk shows to promote themselves. If you're not bundled in with something somebody's already paying attention to, how's anybody going to notice you?
Of course, the closed label-system presently shuns anybody who has already distributed their work by bypassing them because they fear the first recording star who launches into the "big time" without a label contract...
Slashdot Mirror
As Pepsi launches a new promotion... one in three bottle caps on specially marked bottles will win a free SCO license. Pepsi estimates that 90% of the wining bottlecaps will go unused because most of their market doesn't know what Linux even is...
If FreeS/WAN has neither secured the Internet, nor secured the right of US citizens to export software that could do so, it has still had positive benefit.
Talk about two goals that are just plain swimming uphill.
Getting the Internet to change what's not broken is very hard. The fact that our default mode of communications is plaintext doesn't quite scare most pointy haired bosses. They want their stuff secured, but there's no sense in switching protocols when we can just secure on top of the existing protocols with things like VPNs, SSH, PGP, SSL, etc.
Meanwhile, getting the government to lift the crypto-export bans just isn't going to happen either. September 11th, 2001 will always be brought up anytime anybody wants to loosen crypto rules. Being able to talk in a way that the US Government can't intercept and understand is something that truely scares the military and the CIA... because if they can't intercept communications, they lose one of their strongest tools in battle. Maybe the crypto-export rules are weak and aren't going to stop much, but at least it stops everything we can stop using a law, and that's better than zero.
So, another open source project with great ideas but not quite enough resources to get the job done packs it in. Oh, well. So it goes.
The only thing that can truely take care of spam is a protocol for the provider upstream of a user to be able to revoke an e-mail that passed through them. It means moving to an e-mail system that doesn't trust home e-mail servers that don't pass through a trusted company anymore.
Right now, any IP address holding computer has the ability to become a mail server, so any IP address holding computer has the ability to spew spam.
I don't think there's any law that says ISPs can't selectivly put people in certain IP ranges.
Yes. It's in the laws of physics. ISPs allocate IP blocks in geographic segments, otherwise you'll break routing as we know it. Simply put, the bigger the subnets, the less entries you need in the routing table. Having a subnet mask of 255.255.255.254 is just plain a path that leads to chaos.
And really, that speaks more to just how server-heavy an application vBulletin is more than anything else.
Nope nope nope. The press release doesn't have a dollar figure. The CNET story says they got "high-volume discount". They didn't pay anything close to $699... don't be so stupid to assume the worst in every SCO release.
You're comparing apples to oranges. EV1's Linux servers at the time of that article were being built in-house using parts bought in bulk because they were throwing so many online so fast. Windows servers, however, wasn't that big of a product line, so they bought those pre-made.
Every time they introduce a new hard drive size, they have to remake the image they're going to use. Every time a security patch needs to be applied, they need to update all of the images they're currently supporting, and that usally means a total rebuild. Not to mention, they support multiple control panel products on Linux.
The Windows product line, so far at least has kept itself a lot simpler, so they're likely just working from a single installer program to do that.
They're not running Linux-with-Windows. Try actually reading the article you're linking to next time. They just finally got a Windows realtime-setup system that matches their Linux one after a lot of work and help from MS.
Go to http://www.ev1servers.com, then mod the parent down.
Nope. That's what a small regional ISP looks like. That's the line that's mostly used for outbound ISP use... and that's why it always has more coming in than going out.
I've heard good things about servermatrix from a lot of ex-rackshack users. YMMV, of course. Read the webhostingtalk forums.
:)
Oh, and let's not forget that up until recently, Rackshack/EV1 owned the WebHostingTalk forums and it's still hosted there. What other company would be sure enough in itself to sponsor a forum where it's constantly bashed?
I'm not sure an entire dime of yours is involved. EV1Servers hosts over 20,000 servers and this license covers a new datacenter which when filled will have about 30,000 more. Some of these are even double-processor. That's a lot of servers to devide the money accross.
If they paid $150,000 for this "site license" (my estimate... considering that there's a "high-volume discount" and name-use rights involved) then we're talking $3 a server... and if your friend has 100 users on his box that's only three cents of your money involved. Not three cents a month, but three cents and it's over with, SCO can never bother with that server again.
You're going to have a hard time making that list without double-checking IP space. There are a lot of resellers "web hosts" who operate on servers leased from EV1servers and will even sub-lease an entire dedicated server to you at a profit.
There's no such thing as bad publicity. Anything that gets a little-known company attention is bound to be good.
They're also getting the kind of publicity money can't buy out of this... which they timed just as they're about to open a new datacenter. "Server farm you've never heard of pays off SCO" is a far better story than "Server farm you've never heard of opens second datacenter". EV1 can write this all off as cheap ads...
Compared to this bogus SCO license, how much would it have cost them to switch their servers to BSD or even Solaris?
Much more. Notice how EV1 isn't allowed to brag about the price they got out of SCO... just that they got a "huge-volume discount" off the regular price. This deal is not in the 8 figures, it's in the lower end of 6 figures...
Microsoft claims here that they considered Linux, but came back to Microsoft products in the end.
That's a bad summary of the article. EV1 has a great high-volume system for selling Linux dedicated servers in real time. They knew from their own web boards that some people wanted a hosting place as good as EV1 for Windows servers, but EV1 stalled forever because it just wasn't that easy to work with Windows.
Microsoft came in and gave them a great deal of support in setting up their existing order system to work with deploying Windows servers. They didn't throw any Linux servers out, and in fact they're still setting more up... they just were able to add Windows servers to their product lines and were actually able to make it work. Nobody's been able to match their $89/mo. price point on a true dedicated server that runs Windows yet.
EV1's the best in the business. They're not zealots towards any particular OS... they just have a reputation of keeping a large datacenter humming, and now they're about to have two.
Doubt it. EV1 paid for a site license covering both of their datacenters in a one-shot payment. I'm a customer, and I haven't seen anything about it being rolled into my fees...
I have the felling they paid closer to $6.99 a server than $699 a server.
The hosting company didn't get Slashdotted. The main website is up and it's just the one-server fourm that went down. (vBulletin can only get you so far...) I can ping my server that I have there just like nothing's going on.
And nobody should even bother to try to DDOS EV1Servers... They're swimming in bandwidth over there, and that doesn't even show the new datacenter that goes live later this week.
When SCO's FUD is proven to be legally worthless, SCOX stock will drop to absolute zero and the company will be bankrupt. There'd be nothing left to reclaim the money from.
Likewise, if SCO's FUD turns out to be legally valid, Red Hat goes under as everybody all at once sues Red Hat to make them pay up on their idemnification pledge.
SCO's game is one of legal deathmatch. A few bucks (not too many, just a few) is a good deal for somebody who wants to sit this whole thing out.
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.
Free speech is usually best when what's being said is true. In SCO's case, they're getting into the bad habbit of of annoucing a future action of theirs, and then not following through on it.
Say what you want about the RIAA, but at least when they threaten to sue somebody, they follow through on it. I don't see it as that bad a thing to require that when SCO announces they're going to file a lawsuit, they should at least have to do it. Afterall, a victory against just one defendant would legitimize SCO's main claim that they're owed money by everyone who loses Linux. However, if they lose, most of their FUD will be declared something that doesn't stand up in court.
"Trial by media" is what results when there is so much media coverage of an event, it starts to affect the event itself. Sometimes it means that there's so much national media coverage of an event, it's impossible to find a jury that hasn't already started to form an opinion. Other times it means that a defendant who is found not guilty by the court has to deal with a public that thinks otherwise.
I honestly question why judges don't want cameras in their courtrooms. Every word that is said in that courtroom is still going to be talked about too much by the media anyway, so why deny the public the chance to see primary source material instead of leaving the public watching commentators alone?
The way to explain the Creative Commons system to a music artist is this: There are other artists out there who need source material to use in their works, but don't have the money to pay you right now. If you release your song under a CC Attribution and No Commercial Use license, fans can listen to you and movie makers might be able to include you in their early films. However, if that movie maker finally gets a hit and wants to make money with their early film that used you, they've got to come back to you and buy the rights then. If a radio station wants to play your song, they have to at least contact you to get your permission. It's giving other artists at the same level a way to audition for partners so that a collective work.
Record labels angle to get their artists into movies not for the royalty money, but because being used in a hit movie can bring attention to an otherwise unknown artist. Artists perform for free on talk shows to promote themselves. If you're not bundled in with something somebody's already paying attention to, how's anybody going to notice you?
Of course, the closed label-system presently shuns anybody who has already distributed their work by bypassing them because they fear the first recording star who launches into the "big time" without a label contract...