Results 1 to 34 of 34
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Posts
    1,304

    EV1Servers "regrets SCO deal"

    http://slashdot.org/articles/04/03/2...tid=187&tid=88
    http://www.infoworld.com/article/04/...nsee%20_1.html

    "I certainly know a lot more today than I knew a month ago, in a lot of respects." (Marsh said)

    Kevin

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    To me it seems as if he's regreting it because he didn't know the affect it would have on the open source community pretty much boycotting his business.... Well, that's the kind of stuff you need to research doing a thing like this.

    Note: What gets me is I thought many people who dealt with SCO would sign a confidentiality agreement, that definately wasn't the case here. That leads me to believe they wanted the news to get out, hoping it would be good publicity, but it turned around to bite them.
    Last edited by KarlZimmer; 03-26-2004 at 06:49 PM.
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    522
    It's all advertising.
    Nokhrin - http://www.nokhrin.com/
    ~ e-commerce application development

  4. #4
    I don't believe it has anything to do with advertising, it was a high risk gamble and it's backfiring bigtime.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    522
    Well, according to the article, it's not backfiring that bigtime. Robert Marsh said the losses are just as during a regular month.
    Nokhrin - http://www.nokhrin.com/
    ~ e-commerce application development

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    WebHostingTalk
    Posts
    8,878
    Originally posted by Watcher_TVI
    I don't believe it has anything to do with advertising, it was a high risk gamble and it's backfiring bigtime.
    To say the least!

    I think Robert will turn this one around, if not, I strongly feel this could cost him everything.

    Sirius
    I support the Human Rights Campaign!
    Moving to the Tampa, Florida area? Check out life in the suburbs in Trinity, Florida.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    WebHostingTalk
    Posts
    8,878
    Originally posted by mno
    Well, according to the article, it's not backfiring that bigtime. Robert Marsh said the losses are just as during a regular month.
    ... of course, because you hear CEO's all the time, admit publically, "Yeah, we're losing a ton of customers and it isn't looking real pretty right now".

    Of course.

    Sirius
    I support the Human Rights Campaign!
    Moving to the Tampa, Florida area? Check out life in the suburbs in Trinity, Florida.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,040
    Call me cynical, but it sounds to me like they got all the advertising when they announced the deal, now they're getting all the advertising (and goodwill back from the gullible) after they've said "sorry".
    Robin Balen
    Gyron Internet Ltd - http://gyron.net/
    UK colocation, managed hosting and connectivity services with 100% uptime SLAs

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Posts
    124
    Listen, any business relying on Linux to make a buck has a right to be concerned about SCO.

    Now the rest of us can just laugh and say that SCO doesn't have a case in the world, but that's not to say that they're not going to win. I truly believe that EV1 entered into a relationship with SCO to protect their interests and thereby protect the interests of its customers. I think that a lot of web hosts at EV1 probably sighed a little bit of relief at the announcement.

    I too agree that EV1 shouldn't have entered into any kind of relationship with SCO, and I'm glad that Robert now claims to regret it. SCO's actions against the GPL are disgusting and companies like EV1 should stand up to them until there is absolutely no other choice.

    This isn't going to be the end of EV1, though, that's just silly. Most of the people claiming to pack up and move because of the deal are either full of it, not running a business, or just slashdotters having some fun. It'll probably cost em a few servers though, and good, that'll teach em!

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    Detroit, MI
    Posts
    1,067
    Listen, any business relying on Linux to make a buck has a right to be concerned about SCO.
    Yep, that's the FUD machine working exactly as planned.
    <!-- boo! -->

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,040
    but that's not to say that they're not going to win

    No, really, they're not going to win

    Even if they did, it wouldn't affect the vast majority of people anyway (i.e. anyone running newer kernels?).

    I'm not completely up to date on the lawsuit so someone will probably correct me...
    Robin Balen
    Gyron Internet Ltd - http://gyron.net/
    UK colocation, managed hosting and connectivity services with 100% uptime SLAs

  12. #12
    it very simple. he wanted to cause a buzz so he did this stupid thing with SCO so can sell servers for his new Data Center. it is sad that people have stoop to this level. anyway, i DON'T support ev1 anymore so i am moving to server matrix. BAD move ev1

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    749

  14. #14
    http://forums.ev1servers.net/showthr...threadid=43486
    Originally posted by newuser
    Giving an equal amount of money (or more) to one of the Linux funds to help battle SCO would show real action. And it wouldn't invalidate his SCO contracts.

    Otherwise it's just lips flapping.
    Advanced Forum Hosting
    http://www.boardnation.com
    Easily build a community today!

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    44
    Originally posted by slack
    Now the rest of us can just laugh and say that SCO doesn't have a case in the world, but that's not to say that they're not going to win. I truly believe that EV1 entered into a relationship with SCO to protect their interests and thereby protect the interests of its customers.
    You really think so for protecting the interests of its customers. I think more like to protect his deep pocket. With the # of its customers and servers, extreme overselling bandwidth, minimium wage tech support and staffs, and the only company I have known to charge taxes on all non-TX residents around the world in Houston that I have done business with. You can imagine how much he has made over years. So if one day, someone with a lawyer, they tell you that they are going to sue you and if they win, they will get a large portion of his profits over years plus penality added on, after all, they did buy the intellectual properties, they gave him a deep discount if he paid, yeah, it may be just 1 or 2 million that's just a month or 2 from the operation, but you know how much he has made from us over years, if he or his company loses, he could pay up to 10 times more than that, so he paid. Now of course he said sorry for 2 reasons, first to win back suckers like me to keep joining and staying with the company; second, he did regret because now he knows more about what really SCO owned and claims to own, in most people opinion, SCO is going to lose and he could have saved millions!

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Chicago, IL
    Posts
    6,889
    Originally posted by mno
    Well, according to the article, it's not backfiring that bigtime. Robert Marsh said the losses are just as during a regular month.
    Thought I read they normally lose about 1000 accounts a month and this last month they lost 1800, that's an 80% increase, and that's a pretty big increase if you asked me. I also don't think they're out of the woods yet as it takes some people awhile to get moved out of there.
    Karl Zimmerman - Steadfast: Managed Dedicated Servers and Premium Colocation
    karl @ steadfast.net - Sales/Support: 312-602-2689
    Cloud Hosting, Managed Dedicated Servers, Chicago Colocation, and New Jersey Colocation
    Now Open in New Jersey! - Contact us for New Jersey colocation or dedicated servers

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    818
    Originally posted by mno
    It's all advertising.
    bingo, any publicity is good publicity
    Nick Twaddell
    WebSpace Solutions - Custom E-Solutions
    Fast, Reliable, Affordable Web Hosting

  18. #18
    Are we talking 1000 servers here or what??

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    818
    Originally posted by SpiritAu
    Are we talking 1000 servers here or what??
    EV1Servers.Net joins other Fortune 1000 companies that have signed up for a SCO IP license, which was initially offered in August 2003. EV1Servers.Net is one of the world's leading dedicated server providers, with more than 20,000 servers under management.
    Nick Twaddell
    WebSpace Solutions - Custom E-Solutions
    Fast, Reliable, Affordable Web Hosting

  20. #20
    Originally posted by SpiritAu
    Are we talking 1000 servers here or what??
    no it is 1080 server.

    honestly with all respect he deserve it, they should have asked the clients if they are intrested in what they call it protection.

    NO they were not and they moved out, and where to ohh ok they moved to SM with the good offers they got on the 2.8.

    bad move for some = good move for others.
    http://boostdomain.com
    Affordable unlimited domain reseller plans
    Fully Managed Dedicated Servers

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Sofia
    Posts
    1,349
    The article says 1800 sites, not servers. That's a big difference.
    :: :: :: :: :: ::
    :: VDSP.Net :: Directory of virtual and dedi serv providers by location and price

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,512
    I personally feel that Marsh should be happy to rid himself of anyone that is willing to move their business over a licensing dispute that does not directly concern them.

    On that note, I feel bad for the customers of the providers that leave EV1 over such asinine nonsense.

    Should EV1 have paid off SCO? No. Should anyone except EV1 and SCO themselves be concerned about this? Again, no.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    San Luis Obispo, CA
    Posts
    818
    well i think buying the sco licenses was a smart move. so a few idiots left ev1 for an issue that doesent affect them. good riddance to them. ev1 was on every headline of every nerd site the day the sco stuff was released. for the idiots who left ev1, 1000 more customers took your place. buying the sco license was #1 a safe move just incase #2 damn good publicity
    Nick Twaddell
    WebSpace Solutions - Custom E-Solutions
    Fast, Reliable, Affordable Web Hosting

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2000
    Location
    Sheffield, South Yorks
    Posts
    3,480
    They won't care if they've lost a few more accounts - They gained far more in terms of advertising than $1m worth, I'd put it more like $20m+ worth of free publicity for just $1m outlay - Now that's good marketting, you can say what you like about Mr Marsh, but he isn't stupid, just very shrewd, I'd certainly spend $1m to get $20m in advertising, even if it did loose a few more customers in than normal in the process - As the advertising will brin gin far more new customers than left in the first place.
    Karl Austin :: KDA Web Services Ltd.
    UK Business Hosting and Managed Servers - Hosting for Business Users :: 0800 5429 764
    Call us today and ask about our hosting solutions.

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    24,009
    Originally posted by KDAWebServices
    They won't care if they've lost a few more accounts - They gained far more in terms of advertising than $1m worth, I'd put it more like $20m+ worth of free publicity for just $1m outlay - Now that's good marketting, you can say what you like about Mr Marsh, but he isn't stupid, just very shrewd, I'd certainly spend $1m to get $20m in advertising, even if it did loose a few more customers in than normal in the process - As the advertising will brin gin far more new customers than left in the first place.
    Where did folks get that EV1 paid SCO 1 million dollars?

    Also let's not forget that if that is the amount paid, then it would most probably be paid over a time period, and not all in 1 hit.

    IMO, EV1 got the licence/s dirt cheap, so that SCO could trumpett all over the net that they got a customer! lol.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,584
    And now SCO will turn around and sue Robert for Slander or ask for more money not to sue him.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2003
    Location
    Twin Cities Area
    Posts
    5,651
    Originally posted by music
    And now SCO will turn around and sue Robert for Slander or ask for more money not to sue him.
    lol!

    more publicity!

    i didnt realize business was that bad over there!
    if you haven't considered chapter 7 bankruptcy, maybe you should.
    eliminate your debt, keep the property you want, most people qualify.
    contrary to popular belief - no attorney is necessary!

  28. #28
    As we were discussing in the other EV1 topic, in addition to the fact that paying off SCO means supporting a company that is doing terrible things, paying off SCO could well have the effect of endangering yourself as well as potentially endangering your customers. The reason? The SCO license is NOT a blanket protection against litigation --- it is a very specific license which does not allow the signer to look at, redistribute, or use Linux source code in any way.

    This means even installing the Linux kernel source code on your server is a violation of the SCO license, not to mention reading it, compiling a kernel module, or heaven forfend recompiling the kernel itself.

    Think SCO wouldn't sue its own customers? Think again: every one of the companies they are suing they are suing not on the basis of trying to establish an ownership right in Linux (very difficult), but rather suing based on violation of previous license the company signed that SCO believes they have violated.

    So when SCO loses its battle to claim ownership of Linux, they are going to have only one target left to go after: anybody who has signed the SCO license.

    The moment I found out about this I cancelled my server with EV1 and I recommend anyone concerned about the safety of their own servers and customers do the same, quite frankly. It is very dangerous to do business with anybody who has anything to do with SCO.

    I feel sorry for EV1, but they should have done their homework before doing this. They made a gigantic mistake.

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Seattle
    Posts
    5,512
    So basically you're accusing SCO of racketeering?

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    1,584
    i didnt realize business was that bad over there!
    Business in this the U.S.A. is upside down when it comes to the way people sue each other. America is the no fault society. You say something wrong and WHAM, someone turns around and sues you.

    Litigation is so out of hand in America. For example in ILLINOIS many doctors are leaving the State because they can not afford malpractice insurance. The yearly premiums for malpractice for a Doctor can reach up to $250,000 a year because of all the frivolous lawsuits.

    So back to the Topic, SCO knows Robert has money and already paid them once. A firm that specializes in Litigation has all the tools and resources to make anyone’s life miserable and the more money you got the bigger the target you become.

  31. #31
    What's EV1's net worth?

  32. #32
    I never did agree with the move by ev1, but i'm not about to get up and pack my bags like some baby and move to another host. Besides, the ONLY reason why we even KNOW about this whole ev1 sco deal is because they chose to make it public

    for all you know servermatrix and other hosts have done the same thing, we just don't hear about it

    so you could easily be moving to another host who has also paid sco

    What are you gonna do? Get up and leave from that host too? Get over yourselves

  33. #33
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    196
    "$699 for Single CPU"
    I don't believe SCO want Linux Business normally.


    SCO have gotten a great deal of money from Microsoft.

    Everything they can do is to prolong the lawsuit. It doesn't much matter whether they win the case or not. Threatening Linux users are their purpose and their new business, even if they lose the case.
    More than 3 years threat would destroy the Business Linux. At least Windows users would have fears for moving to Linux.

    Netscape won the case, but were destroyed.

  34. #34
    EV1 did not make this deal public, SCO did, despite a confidentiality agreement. If anybody else was dumb enough to sign a deal with SCO I am quite sure SCO would have made it public as well.

    >racketeering

    I have no idea whether you could call what they are doing "racketeering" or not, but I'm not the first person to notice their pattern of behavior. I suggest you read the following:

    http://www.gripe2ed.com/scoop/story/.../25/9157/31038

    The basic pattern is simple: SCO has gone from being a technology company to being a litigation company. They sue former customers for any sort of license violation they can. For example, they are suing Autozone, as Autozone used to use SCO Unix and now uses Linux. SCO is suing Daimler Chrysler because of a license provision in their ancient System V license that requires an audit of their systems.

    In other words, they sue former customers for violating the terms of their license agreement.

    The other point here is that it's not simply a matter of "sign the SCO license and you are safe." You're not safe, because the SCO license specifically prohibits seeing or using what most nontrivial Linux installations see and use all the time: the source code. Not only is SCO trying to claim ownership of Linux, they want to close source all of Linux.

    There is an argument that signing a deal with SCO is the worst single thing you could do in terms of protecting yourself, because you are bound to violate the terms of their restrictive license. EV1 is violating the terms of the SCO license by allowing any of their servers to have any Linux kernel source code on them.

    Those of you willing to risk yourselves and your customers by doing business with EV1 are welcome to it. It's your business, not mine. I am simply pointing out the folly of such a move.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •