Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

SCO Identifies EV1Servers as Linux Licensee

Posted by simoniker on Mon Mar 01, 2004 01:21 PM
from the importance-of-being-licensed dept.
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."
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • by Trigun (685027) <`evil' `at' `evilempire.ath.cx'> on Monday March 01 2004, @01:22PM (#8431421)
    Being the most gullibile company ever incorporated.

    You can pick up your award at /dev/null
    • This is the funniest thing I've seen this week. A slashdotting described as "a slight problem with the database"


      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.
      An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can
      also contact if the problem persists.

      We apologise for any inconvenience.
    • by PinkStainlessTail (469560) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:28PM (#8431529) Homepage
      Being the most gullibile company ever incorporated.

      Couldn't they take SCO to the cleaners if/when SCO loses and this "license" is proven not to be a requirement? Might be a nice short term investment...
      • by IWorkForMorons (679120) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:30PM (#8431584) Journal
        Wouldn't that require SCO to have money left over after this is done?
      • by Shakrai (717556) * on Monday March 01 2004, @01:31PM (#8431607) Journal
        Couldn't they take SCO to the cleaners if/when SCO loses and this "license" is proven not to be a requirement? Might be a nice short term investment...

        That's a nice theory and for a minute there I briefly considered buying an SCO license, but in reality I doubt there will be any meat left on them bones by the time IBM is done with them. Of course you could play vulture and hope that IBM gets full and leaves a few scraps for you -- but I suspect there won't be anything left of SCO other then a bloody stain on the ground where they went down. IBM will probably grind up the bones and use them to make soup before it's all said and done ;)

      • by Eraser_ (101354) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:35PM (#8431665)
        Popular opinion, and some basic arithmetic, seems to indicate that when this is over, SCO proper is going to be flat broke, and Darl McBride, his team of lawyers, and other key people, are going to be living it up out of the country, from banks which don't keep names on file. A company in bankruptcy is easily dissolved. Contracts? I don't see any SCO Group.

        You can almost see the first wire transfer or briefcase of cash being flown to Switzerland. I would like my withdrawl in used unmarked bills, please. Could you also make out that cashiers check to Tin Foil Hats, Inc.
      • by cduffy (652) <charles+slashdot@dyfis.net> on Monday March 01 2004, @01:38PM (#8431732)
        Couldn't they take SCO to the cleaners if/when SCO loses and this "license" is proven not to be a requirement?

        The text of the contract [groklaw.net] says pretty clearly that you don't have much recourse if/when it turns out to be worthless.

        Being Not A Lawyer, I can't really comment on how enforceable this clause is.
  • Linux Users Identify EV1Servers as Dumbasses
    • No kidding... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Xenographic (557057) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:34PM (#8431663) Homepage Journal
      You should also see what Groklaw has to say about this, here [groklaw.net].

      [From Groklaw]
      Speaking of Microsoft turning up in the background, SCO's new licensee, an ISP nobody ever heard of, can be found on Microsoft's [microsoft.com] website, held up as a case study, dated September 2003, of a company that thought they wanted to go to Linux and then switched back:
      "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."
      So they need a SCO IP license to run Microsoft "solutions"? Or is this another Microsoft solution for SCO? EV1's customers aren't so happy [ev1servers.net].

      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 [gnu.org]?

      Section 4 reads:
      4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

      Of course, IANAL.
      • Re:No kidding... (Score:5, Informative)

        by batkiwi (137781) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:41PM (#8431790)
        EV1servers is basically the same "type" of company as www.serverbeach.com (just competing with them).

        They offer dedicated servers with no support (beyond basic setup of the machine) in either linux or windows.

        That article is just saying that initially they offered ONLY linux b/c it took too long to deploy windows servers, but now they can deploy windows servers even faster than they can deploy linux servers.
  • Arggh... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by SisyphusShrugged (728028) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:23PM (#8431439) Homepage
    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!
      • Re:Arggh... (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Waffle Iron (339739) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:45PM (#8431867)
        SCO claims to own IP in Linux and is asking for money to license this IP.

        So you're saying that if I claimed to own the Brooklyn Bridge and tried to collect tolls from the public for using it, that would be legal?

  • by NeoGeo64 (672698) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:23PM (#8431448)
    More SCO news? I reckon they're getting desperate [arie.org].
  • by johnhennessy (94737) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:23PM (#8431451)
    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.

    • by void* (20133) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:25PM (#8431478)
      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.
      • by RobertB-DC (622190) * on Monday March 01 2004, @01:44PM (#8431843) Homepage Journal
        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 [ev1.net]. 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 [rackshack.net]. 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 [rackshack.net]. 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.
    • by roadies (748234) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:29PM (#8431562) Homepage
      I'll be the first to jump on this bandwagon. I've been an EV1/Rackshack customer for a few years. They've generally been a very good provider and they're support is outstanding. I have run into a few issues with their Ensim license in the past that almost made me leave them. Now I'm supporting SCO through them?! Bullshit! Time to take a better look at Server4you, Managed.com, ServerMatrix, and some other dedicated server providers.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @01:24PM (#8431469)
    ...at the fact that they suddenly can no longer access the support forums to complain of this affront to legal decency.
  • by Camel Pilot (78781) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:25PM (#8431472) Homepage Journal
    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.

  • by Johnny_Law (701208) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:25PM (#8431475)
    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...
  • by ackthpt (218170) * on Monday March 01 2004, @01:25PM (#8431484) Homepage Journal
    "EV1 Servers - Passing The Savings On To The Customer"

    "SCO - Playing The Chump Card As Long As We Can"

  • by RocketJeff (46275) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:26PM (#8431500) Homepage
    Yes, for all those people wondering, EV1Servers.net used to be known as Rackshack.net.

    goto Rackshack.net [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.

  • by toygeek (473120) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:26PM (#8431501) Journal
    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.
    • 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.

      While it might have the effect of making other companies choose to buy a license, legally it has no weight. If I set up a scam and you fall for it, and I get caught, I can't tell the judge "Look, this guy bought one, so it must be legit!" That would simply not fly in a court of law in the US.

  • Thats good news (Score:5, Interesting)

    by mnmn (145599) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:27PM (#8431509) Homepage
    ...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.
  • by BladeRider (24966) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:27PM (#8431516) Homepage
    They included the statement, "at our customers request." You can bet they'll be passing the cost of the license on to their customers.
  • by Roached (84015) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:29PM (#8431553)
    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...
  • by Cheap Imitation (575717) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:29PM (#8431563)
    (mobster voice) You know, you sign an agreement with SCO, we can't protect you, you know? Things happen. Geeks get riled up. Servers get Slashdotted...

    It'd be a shame to see that happen to a nice little company like yours... (/mobster voice)

    Tongue-in-cheek, folks!

  • by Pengo (28814) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:30PM (#8431580) Journal
    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
  • by LostCluster (625375) * on Monday March 01 2004, @01:31PM (#8431597) Homepage
    For those of you who aren't customers of EV1, like I am [studioqb.com], 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.
  • Netcraft sez... (Score:5, Informative)

    by phil reed (626) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:31PM (#8431601) Homepage
    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.
  • Well.... (Score:5, Interesting)

    by ZoneGray (168419) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:32PM (#8431624) Homepage
    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.
  • by Iphtashu Fitz (263795) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:32PM (#8431628)
    SCO has become masters of twisting words in their press releases. Take a close look at what the press release [yahoo.com] says and pay particular attention to what's missing.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday March 01 2004, @01:33PM (#8431645)
    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.
  • by inode_buddha (576844) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:36PM (#8431703) Journal
    EV1 has stated that they are using RHEL and BSD if you check out this post at groklaw:

    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.

  • by ConnortheMad (546429) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:41PM (#8431795)
    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.
  • by RyanFenton (230700) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:45PM (#8431866)
    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
    • by ultrabot (200914) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:28PM (#8431547)
      We should boycott EV1Servers for contributing to the SCO legal fund.

      Indeed. Show that sponsoring the terrorists is not tolerated.

      No doubt Darl et. al will bring this up as an example of how the Linux Community (tm) attacks everyone that deals with them, but hey, there's nothing wrong with that.

      Show the world that SCO is a disease that infects everyone that touches it.

      Bring out the torches!

      BTW, I hope nobody is moronic enough to DDOS them. It's a losing strategy. Boycott is much better.

      (Obviously these guys could also be out friends, and this might be a scheme to get to SCO, perhaps for selling what they don't own or whatever, but that seems rather far-fetched).
    • by JudgeFurious (455868) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:33PM (#8431633)
      I've got a better plan. Why don't we let it slide and when this is all over hope that they've learned something. Whether they fell for the SCO BS or not they're technically still on "our" team aren't they?

      If they're running Linux on anything (desktop, server, game cube, vibrating butt plug - it's been ported, whatever) then spare them the rightous anger and check the revolutionary zeal. Go boycott someone who's actually doing something to merit it (there are plenty of candidates)
      • by Xenographic (557057) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:40PM (#8431787) Homepage Journal
        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 [microsoft.com] that they considered Linux, but came back to Microsoft products in the end.

        My what curious press releases these folks appear in...
    • Re:So (Score:5, Interesting)

      by dafz1 (604262) on Monday March 01 2004, @01:31PM (#8431596)
      I doubt that they are paying full price for each license. SCO is probably taking a page out of the RIAA's book...they'll settle for a more agreeable price while claiming victory.

      Oh...and the check is payable to Boies, Schiller, & Flexner, LLP.