EV1 Servers CEO Responds To Customers 537
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.""
Full Text (Score:4, Informative)
Additional Headsurfer Comments Regarding SCO Contract
By now, many of you have heard of oru agreement with SCO. What you have probably heard, though, is misinformation about the arrangement.
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.
We did not license a linux distribution or any software covered by a referenced EULA from SCO. We did, however, license certain IP from SCO.
We fullly support the GPL and the open source movement.
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.
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 defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one.
We make no endorsement of SCO nor do we make any admission as to their claims.
HOWEVER, what we did do was make a prudent business decision based upon our circumstances and our customers needs and the need to bring certainty to their businesses.
Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO has said will increase. These suits have a very real and significant cost, even if proven unsuccessful. These are costs we were prepared to bear as we did in the Free Speech case with CI Host. the vast majority of smaller hosts using our services do not have our resources to defend/prosecute such an action. While our decision may not be popular, it does ensure that our customers (to the extent that they operate servers in our data centers) are protected from action by SCO with respect to those servers.
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case
In every step building the EV1 business, I've had to make decisions that I believed in my heart were in the best interests of my clients and my shareholders. My team and I have worked to bring the best possible service at the best possible price to our customers. In this case, the same decision making tools were employed and only after significant thought and analysis, an action taken.
As a result of this action, our customers can be assured that as these cases work their way through the legal system, that thay have no worry that SCO will take action against them for servers in our data centers.
I do appreciate the positive comments and emails that many of you have sent as I also understand the negative positions that others have taken. We are fortunate to live in a country where it is possible to speak your mind freely.
Robert Marsh
Head Surfer
DC2 Opens on Wednesday with limited server availability. Initial deployments are likely to be dual drive/1 GB configurations. Additional configurations will follow as time and space allow.
NetCraft story (including /. reference) (Score:5, Informative)
By paying a licensing fee to insulate itself against SCO's legal claims, EV1Servers drew immediate fire from many corners of the Linux community, with some Slashdot [slashdot.org] readers suggesting a boycott of the company. EV1Servers is one of the largest dedicated hosting companies, with more than 11,000 Linux servers visible on the Web, according to our most recent survey. [netcraft.com]
"We realize we may be vilified by some diehards within the industry, but we feel a real obligation to take care of our customers," Marsh said in an interview this afternoon. "We had private discussions about this issue with some of our customers, and they were quite concerned about the uncertainty and the potential for a legal quagmire. What we've done is ensure that it's not an issue for our customers."
no, Mr. Marsh, what you've done... (Score:5, Interesting)
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?
Some Questions for Mr. Marsh... (Score:5, Insightful)
Mr. Marsh owes his customers much more information than this. Specifically:
I hope that all of EV1's customers demand answers to these questions, as forcefully as necessary. They need this information to assess whether they are, in fact, better or worse off as a result of Mr. Marsh's decision.
Re:Some Questions for Mr. Marsh... (Score:5, Insightful)
-
EV1 paid a paltry sum just to get a 'good name', that they are the only SCO-Risk-Free hosting provider.
-
SCO paid them an undisclosed NDA bounded sum and and gave them the "License to use Linux".
Both ways SCO profits by being able to point at the large number of Linux Web Site which have signed up fo SCO Linux License. EV1 profits by having paid very little. Because they paid very little they would profit in the long run. That is some of us might get angry and boycot them, but others would be delighted and switch to EV1 servers just to get that protection. Either way EV1 is beting that more will switch to them. Thats my $0.20Clueless customers. (Score:5, Insightful)
Now this wasn't because EV1 particularly wanted to bend over to SCO, but because they'd rather do so that alienate the idiots. For those that know the situation, think of it something like doing something you know is rather useless/stupid for a boss or important client (many of us have been there).
Explaining exactly what was "bought" isn't going to help much, because those who are clueless enough to press for a "license" never understand that it wasn't needed in the first place. I'm just hoping that any excess costs due to this (though EV1 might just take a bite if it's small enough) get passed on to the stupid customers who wanted the license rather than those who saw it for the BS that it is.
Re:Some Questions for Mr. Marsh... (Score:4, Insightful)
What price was paid for this "IP license"? A claim like "our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this, much less prosecuting one" is totally unconvincing while the amount of the fee remains secret. Moreover, obviously customers will be indirectly footing the bill for this, so they need to be able to figure out just how much it's costing them.
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.
In fact, why not take this to the logical conclusion? Does your company have customers? If so, those customers are paying your salary. Do you see where I'm going here?
Grammar? (Score:5, Informative)
- "We did not license a linux distribution..."
- "...various GPL Linux developers plaugerists..." (What are those? People who transmit the plague?)
- "SCO already has like $60 million on hand..." (Like, oh-my-god! That's like sooo much money!)
- "Whatever your position on the various suits, which SCO has said will increase." (This is not even a sentence.)
- "There is significcant risk"
That is by no means an exhaustive list. The letter is riddled with unprofessional colloquialisms and poorly-constructed sentences. Even the parent company name (EV1) is formally listed as "Everyones Internet." Missing an apostrophe, Bob? -AaronRe:Grammar? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Grammar? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is, a person's writing skills is almost a direct correlation to the quality of their education. It is not unreasonable to determine someone is less educated after reading material from them that is riddled with grammar and spelling mistakes.
Maybe he is intelligent but poorly educated. However, to suggest he adds some level of authenticity to his writings by making spelling and grammar mistakes is a bit silly. I also have real opinions and real feelings. I consider it more effective to share those opinions and feelings with others by doing it through proper spelling and grammar. It is also considerably more effective when you are writing something with the intention to convince others that you made a correct decision to use proper grammar and correct spellings.
When I read his open letter to the community, I immediately concluded that he just is not smart enough to understand the full consequences of his decision. He definately does not comprehend that, despite his protests, he gave SCO the full argument that there is now a company which accepts the validity of SCO's claims. Otherwise, he just paid them money for nothing.
Granted, he may have done the equivalent of an actuarial analysis in his head and decided that the SCO licenses were a cheap insurance against the possible legal exposure. But given the impression that he is not very educated, I suspect he is not very capable of doing a good analysis.
Re:Grammar? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think that in Mr. Marsh's mind it's all about business. Each decision is based on cost-benefit analysis.
For example:
To him, it is worth the "licensing" fees to remove the possible costs of defending a lawsuit.
To him, the increase in sales gained by presenting a better image by posting gramatically correct announcements would not outweigh the cost of hiring a proofreader.
Of course, this is all simply my opinion from observing the company from the outside.
Re:Full Text -- Translation (Score:5, Insightful)
In the Mafia, this kind of practice is known as "protection." They'd force local shopkeepers to pay them money to not send their goons to trash their stores. It annoys the heck out of me that SCO can get away with extorting this kind of money from companies before they've even proven their case in the IBM-Novell lawsuit(s). But then, everyone here agrees on that point.
Re:Full Text (Score:5, Insightful)
I can see where this is coming from, but isn't it just a tad extreme? Boycotting SCO is one thing. Boycotting EV1 because they paid their protection money is another. 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.
I mean, what next? Boycott the office services companies that do the cleaning for the companies that host with people who paid protection money to the criminals? How many more levels will it take before you have to boycott yourself?
Re:Full Text (Score:4, Insightful)
Stupidity should be painful (Score:5, Informative)
I can see where this is coming from, but isn't it just a tad extreme? Boycotting SCO is one thing. Boycotting EV1 because they paid their protection money is another.
Nope, it's not extreme at all. Just one single user buying one of their stupid licenses gives them a note of validity. A precedent.
And, that money goes to SCO, who will use it to hurt other people with and continue their nonsense. I don't buy music CDs for the same reason, because of the RIAA. I make sure my money does not support people who wish to abuse me, curtail my rights, or harm the world if I can help it.
A good example of this would be spam. It's the one idiot in a gazillion that buys the Gene-ric Vi'ag'ra that makes spam profitable, and therefore keeps spam around. And EV1 just became that idiot for the entire Linux community.
So to sum up, stupidity should be painful. Boycott them.
Weaselmancer
Re:Full Text (Score:5, Informative)
Will it influence what we do in future decisions, if we need to expand our server ops? Yes. Will we pick up tomorrow and move on? No. We have dozens of websites (not a lot, but given who they are, we have some measure of pride) who are in the middle of the most important periods of their calendar year. It would be suicidal to say to them, "Hi, you may see some issues over the next couple of days as we change providers; sorry if this impacts you right in the middle of your online conference registration and your members can't access your site."
Also, don't suggest we figure take the extra time to make the transition smooth for our clients -- many of us are still students ourselves; I'm in my last semster of an education degree and typing this from the "big honkin' desk" at my student teaching post right now. I barely have time to keep my shoes tied -- hell, I switched back to velcro just to be safe!
For those who have the resources, be it in time, manpower, or money, to leave EV1 on your timetable, good for them. For the rest of us, please show some patience. Not everyone who is staying is happy about this, but unless you're volunteering your personal time to help out EV1 clients who want to leave, what you're asking is unfair and unreasonable.
Re:Full Text (Score:4, Interesting)
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.
Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:It's a big deal for other reasons too (Score:5, Interesting)
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".
Microsoft + SCO + EV1 = anti-trust (Score:5, Interesting)
by ImpintheBox (153919) [slashdot.org] on Mon Mar 01, '04 02:00 PM (#8432077) [slashdot.org]
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
It's money racketeering, plain and simple (Score:5, Insightful)
Face it, this is as much extortion as the RIAA suing children and then "settling" for a fraction of that amount, but with guaranteed payment. The government should be using the RICO Act to nail all the offending parties. That they don't speaks volumes about their allegiances....
There's a reason you're not a lawyer... (Score:4, Troll)
Sue them for WHAT?
Go ahead, spit acronyms left and right all you want, but there's nobody that can sue them under RICO no matter how much you want to believe it as a result of the fact that you have NO clue what you're talking about. You don't understand the purpose of RICO or how it's used anymore, so stop claiming it can be used against SCO or the RIAA or anybody else for that matter.
SCO did nothing illegal. The RIAA did nothing illegal. You can't usually successfully sue somebody for being immoral. You're never going to get an extortion charge for offering a settlement to stupid people. There's no "racketeering" going on.
Next time you try to claim that "such and such" should sue/arrest/whatever somebody else, at least take 5 seconds to Google the damn law you're going to claim can be used. I can imagine that with assinine comments like this one being modded up, this place must be like a comedy club for lawyers. OFFERING BAD CONTRACTS TO PEOPLE (without misrepesenting them) WHO ARE DUMB ENOUGH TO SIGN THEM IS IMMORAL - NOT ILLEGAL. OFFERING SETTLEMENTS TO PEOPLE FACING LEGITIMATE COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT SUITS *MIGHT* BE IMMORAL DEPENDING ON YOUR POSITION IN THE MATTER - IT IS NOT ILLEGAL.
Please, Slashdot. Do try to beat that into your thick skulls. Go ahead and label me troll now. I know you'd rather stroke your overinflated egos and pretend you know what you're talking about rather than admitting that, in fact, the law is not going to step into either one of these issues unless it's in the context of evaluating how the legal system is being abused by the respective parties. That would be nice, but don't hold your breath.
Re:There's a reason you're not a lawyer... (Score:4, Informative)
So I figure, if somebody wants to throw out the idea that there is a RICO violation involved in using misleading contracts and false legal claims and press statements as part of a systematic attempt to threaten and bully money out of admittedly naive companies, then dammit, either explain why he's wrong and give him a thwack upside the head or constructively contribute to the discussion. DON'T spew out sentences in all caps reiterating your argument without any evidence of your own to back up your point, you'll just get yourself ripped a new asshole.
The most probable possibility (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Eh (Score:4, Funny)
"Then they came up with what they called the Other Other Operation, in which they would threaten to sue a Linux user if he did not buy a license. This, for the Piran^H^H^H^H^HMcBride brothers, was the turning point."
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
No legal action is certain. The outcome of every legal action is subject to risk. (Just look at the OJ Simpson case
He is right. Absolutely right. Law does not mean that what is right will win. Law means what the judge/jury feels right will win. And about the justice system, the less said the better. Still think SCO will lose? There are innumerable precedents on slashdot itself
here [slashdot.org], here [slashdot.org] and many other places too. Infact this place [slashdot.org] is a good place to look for such things.
So he just covers his customers. Unless SCO loses, more such instances will come forward. So this case needs to be wrapped up, for good or bad, soon.
His customers and he are already covered; so WHY? (Score:5, Interesting)
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?"
The legal cost of being sued is zero (Score:3, Interesting)
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
This is not about money (Score:5, Insightful)
Look, I do understand your point, but I think you are missing the one that is driving mad most of us that are otherwise reasonable people.
Let me try to explain. Right now, I'm writing a piece of software that I intend to release under the GPL. It is nice software---nothing as relevant as Linux or Apache, but cool nevertheless. The reason why I'm commited to doing this, even if it consumes a substantial amount of my otherwise billable time, is because I like doing this stuff, and I'd like to see other people using my software. Maybe it will help some guy with a thight budget somewhere. Or maybe some kid will learn something of my code. It feels good to help people, and in my experience it is also a good strategy for my own benefit, in the long run. Call it "building karma", if you like (go read Lin Yutang on this topic---really insightful stuff).
And I think the guys and gals spending lots of time building Linux, or Apache, are doing it for similar reasons. I just don't see what other reason they can have. Even the big companies, like IBM, should be able to see now how this "helping people" strategy may yield substantial benefits to everyone involved. This is a non-zero sum game.
Now, along come these SCO guys. These are men that are trying to make it so that people cannot use free software unless they get paid. They are effectively trying to steal what other people gave to the world. These men have directly called free software authors plagiarists and incompetents, and by not so subtle implication, thieves and terrorists. These men have reaped great finantial gain from free software, and now are turning around stabbing in the back the very people that helped them get where they are.
You see, this is not about what is more "cost effective", or what makes more "business sense", and it is very much a big deal. I bet Mr. "Head Surfer" and his customers like their free Linux, their free Apache, and their free PHP. By paying off SCO, they gave a slap in the face of the people that wrote that software (and many more other programs that EV1 depends on, whether they realize it or not).
I don't know how much it costs to host with this company, but if I were a customer, I'd gladly pay twice anywhere else. Hell, EV1 could pay me to stay, and I wouldn't. This isn't about money at all.
Re:Eh (Score:5, Insightful)
We can only assume they did this because they knew their customers wouldn't like the idea of their money being used against Linux. That their customers wouldn't like the idea of EV1 lending credibility to SCO's case. That their customers would recognize this for the cheap scam it is and doubt the sanity of EV1's management.
Robert Marsh is either an idiot, a tool for SCO/MS, or insane, there is no other rational explination. His "explination" of his action omits several important facts (including, but not limited to, the reason why he lied to his customers by not informing them of his decision) and the rest has a null semantic value. In other words his explanation is pure, government grade, BS.
We're being too hard on the guy (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:We're being too hard on the guy (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:We're being too hard on the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We're being too hard on the guy (Score:5, Insightful)
He is just being conservative and figures that it's worth paying for liscenses (he peobobly got a better deal the $699 as well) instead of risk a lawsuit.
He was already indemnified by Redhat. The only way this would make sense from a business perspective is if a) he thought Redhat were going to go out of business, or b) there's another side to this deal that we don't know about (e.g. kickbacks from SCO).
Personally, I think neither are true, and he's just stupid. That's reason enough to switch hosting companies.
Re:We're being too hard on the guy (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm sorry, but he's an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
It does indeed sound like he did this with the best of intentions.
But no, I'm sorry, no word less strong than 'idiot' could possibly begin to describe the path to hell he just set his company on, with the best of intentions of course.
TSG hadn't the slightest grounds to sue them before. Of course, under the US legal system, you sue first and the court checks if you have any grounds later, so they could have cost him some lawyer time.
But doesn't a company that size pay a retainer already, for just such reasons?
TSG had no grounds to sue them before, no grounds to be involved with them in any way shape or form. Now they've signed a contract. 'Contracts are what you use against people you have a relationship with' as Mr. McBride so eloquently stated.
This contract gives EV1 nothing whatsoever they didn't already have, in the sense of assets, positive things. It does give them plenty of liablilities. It gives TSG a contract that may give them cause for a suit in the future. It may very well be violating their license under the GPL, rendering any new linux installations they undertake copyright infringement, punishable by a statutory fine of $125,000 US per incidence as well. It in no way makes their position any more stable, but rather opens them from attacks from every side that they were completely and utterly proof against before taking this license.
I said it before, in the last article on this story, and I'll say it again, either EV1s attorneys are utterly incompetent, or their management is, or both. Go to Groklaw, read this license. It's a license for nothing, it gives the buyer nothing, it's only possible purpose is to set the buyer up for a lawsuit later. Anyone that would pay a dime for this thing after reading it is just plain stupid. If TSG was offering to pay you $699 per processor, flat rate no bulk discounts, it would still be a bad deal.
I am (happily) not personally involved with them at the moment. If I were I would terminate that relationship immediately. I certainly will not even consider entering any business relationship with them in the future. A company that size that can't afford an hour of a lawyers time to look at such a thing before they sign it has no future in this world, that's just the cold hard facts. EV1 customers - find an alternative. Today. Not to punish these folks - this kind of incredible stupidity is its own punishment, and quite sufficient. But simply to protect yourself. If you make the change now, you can do it with minimal hassle. If you wait until someone summons these bozos into a court, it could be a lot more painful.
Re:I'm sorry, but he's an idiot (Score:3)
new linux installations they undertake copyright infringement, punishable by a
statutory fine of $125,000 US per incidence as well
I'm no expert on the GPL, but since the GPL limits distibution and not use,
I don't see how the above statement makes any sense. Are you claiming that
since EV1 rents out machines running Linux that they are essentially
distributing Linux? Are you also claiming that they are somehow violating
the GPL by paying s
Re:I'm sorry, but he's an idiot (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:I'm sorry, but he's NOT an idiot (Score:5, Insightful)
And consider the timing. Scox has a windfall of negative news right now, and earnings come out Wednesday; what convenient timing for this PR hype.
The guy is CEO of #6 web-hosting company in the USA. Hardly an idiot. Certainly his company has a legal department. Certainly they know about redhat indemnification, certainly they know that scox can't sue their customers, certainly they how laughably weak scox's case is.
And notice how Marsh doesn't give any real information? Notice how he tap dances around the real issues? This guy knows what he's doing.
Marsh isn't an idiot, he's another scam artist. His "hip" act doesn't fool me. Mr "headsurfer" and "redhat is awesome" I'm not falling for any of that. I'm not buying that "I'm your buddy" bullsh!t.
Re:We're being too hard on the guy (Score:4, Insightful)
If he is "just conservative", he's a complete moron because now EV1servers can be sued for GPL infringement and can be more easily sued by SCO as well because they now have contracts with many many clauses that could be violated.
I personally think Microsoft gave EV1servers the money with the order to pay it to SCO because it wouldn't look that good if Microsoft would buy yet another SCO license.
Why is this so hard to understand? (Score:5, Interesting)
"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.
What they did (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:What they did (Score:4, Interesting)
Marsh is happy as a clam.. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Marsh is happy as a clam.. (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO really reminds me of the mafia. Pay me an IP license fee and we won't sue you out of business. Are MBAs like Darl McBride the new organized crime figures? I'm suprised no one has tried using the RICO laws against SCO.
Re:Marsh is happy as a clam.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Eventually this does so much damage to capitalism that the economy collapses ( Black Monday [wikipedia.org] anyone?) and the government finally has to break up a few of the bigger Oligarchies [wikipedia.org] (technically they aren't monopolies, but financial oligarchies). Theodore Rosevelt and (of all people) William Howard Taft are the big "trust busters" from the last time this happened. Its set to happen again, doubtless in just a few more decades. Gad, history makes you depressing...
From the article: (Score:5, Insightful)
The purchase of his decision (Score:5, Funny)
Ah hah! So it's true! SCO bribed him into doing it!
What? Just a typo? Oh... uh... right. I knew that.
Who you callin' a plaugerist? (Score:5, Funny)
Well... (Score:5, Funny)
Can't speak for you, but I would be most upset if someone called me a plaugerist. Not sure what that is but it just sounds dirty.
Re:Well... (Score:5, Funny)
A "Plaugerist" is one who plays the very rare musical instrument known as the plaug, or plauger. As everyone knows this is a cross between the bagpipes, the harmonica and the old english crumhorn.
Old statutes, still on the books, prohibit the playing of the plaug at or near the full moon, or anywhere within 1 mile of a breeding colony of horseshoe bats. Audiences generally contend that it sounds best when either played, or listened to, underwater. Some extremists advocate it's use only in all helium (or other inert gas) atmosphere for the best effect.
It led, via a very convoluted path, to the expression "plaug and play", now I believe, claimed as part of the IP license which you can buy from SCO.
K&P (Score:3, Informative)
Don't kick me but.... (Score:4, Interesting)
mods: Don't mod me troll for asking a question
Re:Don't kick me but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
And what makes you certain that SCO won't come after *BSD too? Don't say "because they have no case" because they have no case with Linux users either, but that hasn't stopped them. Must everyone have to switch OS's (On production systems? That would be expensive) everytime some lawsuit-happy moron starts making idiotic claim? It's more prudent to ignore them till they go away.
Re:Don't kick me but.... (Score:5, Insightful)
They've already said they'll be coming after BSD once they've got Linux so it would be a lot of hassle for a short term gain. If they can win on Linux (which I doubt) they can win against *BSD.
TWW
Well.. (Score:5, Interesting)
Civil disobedience is not a good business model. On the other hand, that's an awfully hefty fee to shell out. $1 Million? [internetnews.com] 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."
I wonder if they coulda insured themselves (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Well.. (Score:4, Insightful)
Civil Disobedience? Where did that come from. I know what isn't a good business model - rolling over and paying up to the first moron who threatens you with baseless legal action. How many other morons are waiting to join the queue and get free money out of EV1 (and ultimately out of the pockets of EV1's customers)?
Rampant Plaugerism (Score:4, Funny)
'Plaugerists'? Now, if he'd accused them of plagiarism he might have had a point, but to accuse them of supporting Dinkumware [plauger.com] is a bizarre move indeed!
Curse those plaugerists, with their Standard Template Libraries and their cheery Australian charm...
Whose side is he on? (Score:5, Insightful)
Now, it is interesting that he did voice support for open-source projects like Linux. But then he also affirms that his license is one of IP from SCO. Just sounds like he is trying to be a crowd pleaser and ended up with the wrong crowd.
CYA (Score:3, Interesting)
Cover Your Ass.
It strikes me that it's all he is really trying to accomplish. For himself, and his customers.
Re:CYA (Score:5, Insightful)
Except he's actually made the situation worse.
Even if one had no concern for the positive PR and the pile of cash this gives SCO, (And its resulting effect on the rest of linux users) one needs to consider the legal ramifications of what the have just done.
I find the last item to be extremely important because these are the people who would be (possibly) hosting your website. This means that it's quite likely I could threaten these guys with a baseless lawsuit about your webpage, and the would rip the sucker right down. What good is reliable hardware, when the people behind it cave under the slightest threat?
The CEO can't afford a spellchecker? (Score:5, Interesting)
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:The CEO can't afford a spellchecker? (Score:5, Funny)
Maybe EV1 should invest in a good Administrative Assistant:
"Actually, Mr. Marsh, it's spelled 'p-l-a-g-i-a-r-i-s-m.'"
"Perhaps, Mr. Marsh, we should wait and see whether SCO survives their suit with IBM."
"No, Mr. Marsh, I don't think this email is from a real exiled Nigerian Prince."
Re:The CEO can't afford a spellchecker? (Score:4, Interesting)
The first one is still legit. The second criticism is out-of-date. That is called "logical quoting" as explained by the Jargon Dictionary [astrian.net], 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
Why he's an idiot (part 1 out of ...) (Score:5, Interesting)
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:Why he's an idiot (part 1 out of ...) (Score:5, Insightful)
It's a protection fee, nothing more. You used to pay it to a guy who came into your shop every week or later that night a group of thugs would come by and smash in your windows, bust up your shop, and beat you and your wife as you're trying to close up for the night. Welcome to the information age where the "busting up your shop" is done through expensive frivilous lawsuits and protection fees are paid through "licensing".
Certain IP from SCO (Score:5, Funny)
"Certain"? Did SCO actually tell them what IP they are licensing?
I thought not.
Makes no sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
I read this earlier today. Marsh is just doing spin. End-users were never liable anyhow, if there'd been a problem they'd refer SCOX to EV1 (since they're buying the service from them), which would refer to RedHat (the OS supplier) which is already in litigation with SCOX anyhow.
He claims this was 'cheap' insurance. However, he refuse to tell us how much it actually was. If it was so cheap, why wouldn't he like to be able to tell his customers "Look, we only paid $X, it's cheap!". On the other hand, if it was cheap then SCOX wouldn't want the numbers to be out there ("We gave away 20K server license for PR-rights" wouldn't sound too great), which brings us to the fact that EV1 was in a position of power over SCOX, and chose to agree to not disclose the sum. In other words, they're helping SCOX out.
I think that Marsh is pretty much alone in thinking this was a good idea. There was no pressure from linux-customers _at all_. He's He did this for the PR. New server-center around the corner, using SCO to make headlines sounded great!
He just can't admit it in public. Reading his 'this was a sound business-decision'-bullshit is sickening.
SCO says: "Copyrights and patents are protection against strangers," [...] "Contracts are what you use against parties you have relationships with. From a legal standpoint, contracts end up being far stronger than anything you could do with copyrights." -- http://e-businessadvisor.com/doc/12514
Enjoy your new friends, EV1LServers.
Still inexcusable (Score:3, Insightful)
Sure it can make some business sense, from a certain perspective, to cover one's ass in this way, especially given that you get a lot of free publicity to boot.
However, there is one simple reason that I hope that the negativeness of the publicity negates in this case the sheer amount of it: ev1 has voluntarily given SCO's claims credibility (in the eyes of some) and financed their crusade against Linux. This is, as such, inexcusable.
Someone in their forums suggested that ev1 redeem itself by voluntarily donating the same amount to some of the SCO legal defence funds. This would be a good start, but I can't see it being very likely.
Now I know EV1 is a pushover (Score:5, Funny)
I cannot reveal the nature of this software, but my company and I have identified thousands of pieces of it running on EV1's servers.
As EV1 have not indicated to me that they are not running such software (and as with SCO, the burden of proof is obviously on EV1 duh) then I have no option but to request the payment of $1599 per deployment of my IP on their systems. This comes to a total of $65,900,000 (some of their machines are running multiple instances of my IP).
All fees will be waived if they provide proof they are not running my IP, which I do not believe they will be able to do. I expect payment within 90 days. If payment is received, I will not take legal action against EV1.
(yeah I'm joking but damn, how far can protection rackets go once the weak cave in)
small fee? (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh I don't know. $1m seems like it'll go pretty far however big the size of your company.
Can't work that way can it? (Score:4, Interesting)
versus
Unless it is substantially different from this [thescogroup.com], the clauses of the license make this pretty impossible.
What am I missing?
Create a new option for companies like EV1 (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
"Plaugerists?" "PLAUGERISTS?" (Score:3, Funny)
It's nice to know that the GPL Linux programmers are reading the C++ Programmers' Journal, programming on purpose, and following the elements of programming style.
I hope they'll all keep Plauging away at it.
anybody pull out of EV1 over this? (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Not insurance, but like hiring a hitman (Score:5, Insightful)
EV1 wins by (a) getting its name in the press; (b) by sicing SCO onto its competitor.
SCO wins by (a) getting a "customer" for its IP, and (b) getting some money.
See, both win.
EV1 just found a new weapon in the cutthroat wars that are the hosting business these days.
The question is: will enough people leave EV1 to cause them some pain? Will customers be able to break their contract based on this? Will some other hosting company jump in to provide the same deal to existing EV1 customers if they switch?
Stay tuned!
Useful links (Score:3, Insightful)
Boycott! (Score:5, Insightful)
Convince any user of SCO's *nix products that you will boycott their service/product unless they DROP SCO.
Death of a thousand pinpricks (Score:5, Insightful)
SCO already has like $60 million on hand and our small fee would not go very far defending an action such as this
No single raindrop believes that it is to blame for the flood. [despair.com] Presumably this CEO also believes that donating $25 to Al Qaeda doesn't promote terrorism, or that dumping a gallon of used motor oil in a river doesn't promote pollution. Or that buying somethng from a spammer doesn't promote spam.
EV1Server Refugee (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Headsurfer. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
dude, where's my license? (Score:4, Funny)
"dude, they've got, like, way more money than that, so like, we figured it was like cool and stuff."
SCO or no SCO, I wouldn't want to do business with a company whose CEO has the spelling and diction of a twelve-year-old sk8r.
Affordable alternative? (Score:3, Interesting)
If anyone knows for a fact about some other hosting company with comparable prices / service, please post below.
I am sure other
Did he read the license? (Score:4, Informative)
Slashdotted already! (Score:5, Funny)
Brief, to the point. I like it!
pimping around with mcbribe (Score:4, Funny)
McBribe at some conference. That seems like a guy with the Linux community good will in mind. If I had just been extorted out of a million dollars the last thing I would do is follow around the CEO with my lips attached to his ass.
Plaugerists? (Score:5, Funny)
Hmm, I'm not sure about that. I certainly learned a lot from P. J. Plauger's books, not least The Elements of Programming Style (co-written, of course, with Brian W. ``Water-Buffalo'' Kernighan). Does that make me a Plaugerist?
Also from the article (Score:4, Funny)
Shame he didn't use his brain instead.
Liars, Dumbasses and Fools (Score:5, Interesting)
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 [microsoft.com]
(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.
Sent this to my hosting provider today: (Score:4, Interesting)
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
My Response (Score:5, Interesting)
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
Let's see the "license" Headsurfer (Score:4, Insightful)
Make your license with SCO public. You say it wasn't Linux you licensed from SCO, then prove it. Publish your license with SCO. Not only will it quell those that say you padded the coffers of SCO with protection money for Linux, by showing them that you paid for *actual* intellectual property (you did, right?) but it will calm your clients and potential clients if they know that you used money taken from customers and spent it on valid software for their use.
That is unless the license reads "We 0wn j00" (in essence, of course)
Currently, it appears you've done the following.
- Paid SCO to not be bullied over using Linux anymore
- Got a helluva licensing deal from Microsoft in the interim, which is kinda shady WRT the SCO bit...
- Snubbed MANY of the Linux and Open Source contributors, those that you say you respect and that provided MUCH of the software that has made your business economically viable
- Snubbed many of the same technical types who *were* considering your services
- And have entered into a contract, which currently, appears to be impossible not to violate (GPL + Linux + Kernel redistribution on server + SCO License = revoked GPL and violation of SCO license which opens you up to suits. They've said recently they intend to sue their customers. Helluva time to become one...)
So, do you think the protection was worth it. If so, show us what you got for your Million dollars. That is unless there was a great snake oil sale in Lindon....11,000 linux servers (Score:3, Informative)
(so 55%)
Re:another reason to avoid them (Score:3, Interesting)
I call bullshit (Score:4, Insightful)
boot and self-test == under 10 seconds
boot-image notices that box is bare == fraction of second
system image (make it comprehensive, call it 1GB packed into 300MB) -> ungzip -> disk @ 100Mb/s == 10MB/s == 30 seconds
edit config files to suit, remount system image == under 1 second
bring up firewall, named, sshd, apache, ftpd == 3 seconds
total time bare -> running Linux, under a minute, and you don't even need to reboot if you sent out the right kernel the first time
you can also broadcast the disk image and do as many Linux machines as you like roughly every 30 seconds
Re:What are the alternatives? (Score:4, Informative)
One reason being that live humans answer support emails, with relevant answers to issues or questions, not scripted bullshit.
We'll see what I think of it in 3 years, but if nothing changes, I'll be staying.