×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

740 comments

Their other accolade: (5, Funny)

Trigun (685027) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431421)

Being the most gullibile company ever incorporated.

You can pick up your award at /dev/null

There seems to have been a slight problem.... (5, Funny)

Fishstick (150821) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431511)

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.

Re:There seems to have been a slight problem.... (4, Funny)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431531)

This is the funniest thing I've seen this week. A slashdotting described as "a slight problem with the database"

Think they are really getting an e-mail with each failed attempt? Poor bastards.

Re:There seems to have been a slight problem.... (5, Funny)

orkysoft (93727) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431567)

It seems like the Technical Staff will have a slight problem with their inbox too ;-)

Re:There seems to have been a slight problem.... (5, Funny)

carrowood (325102) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431612)

You gotta especially love the part about refreshing... That always helps during a good ole slash-dotting ;-)

Re:Their other accolade: (5, Interesting)

PinkStainlessTail (469560) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431529)

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...

Re:Their other accolade: (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431582)

I don't think there'll be much left to claim against by the time IBM have finished with them.

Re:Their other accolade: (4, Insightful)

Shakrai (717556) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431607)

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 ;)

Re:Their other accolade: (3, Insightful)

El (94934) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431646)

When SCO loses and immediately files bankruptcy because they've spent far more on lawyers then they have taken in in revenue, it might be just a little difficult for anybody to get money out of them... in fact, even if the IBM countersuit prevails, I expect they will never get paid.

Maybe, just maybe... (1)

Wun Hung Lo (702718) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431576)

they're really smart. When SCO's case gets torpedoed in court, everyone who DIDN'T buy a license will just be glad it's over. EVI, on the other hand, will have a lovely case for fraud and extortion against SCO. It's not likely that's what they had in mind, but it's possible.

Pay up (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431423)

Teabaggers.

and the next headline is... (5, Funny)

chrisopherpace (756918) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431426)

Linux Users Identify EV1Servers as Dumbasses

Re:and the next headline is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431602)

if you ever talk to their techs, then you would agree that dumbasses are an understatement.

FIRST DFUCKGIN PSOTS (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431427)

asfdsfisdof sfdhlsdkjfs

??

Profit

Arggh... (5, Interesting)

SisyphusShrugged (728028) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431439)

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... (0, Flamebait)

110010001000 (697113) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431659)

Uh, how is this extortion? SCO claims to own IP in Linux and is asking for money to license this IP. Companies are coming forward and licensing it. Oh yeah, and these guys aren't the first licensees either. The other ones are asking to remain anonymous.

Boycott EV1Servers (3, Interesting)

Bull999999 (652264) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431441)

We should boycott EV1Servers for contributing to the SCO legal fund.

Re:Boycott EV1Servers (3, Funny)

irokitt (663593) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431455)

Better yet, let's Slashdot them!

slashdotted (5, Funny)

Doug Merritt (3550) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431481)

Better yet, let's Slashdot them!

That happened well over twelve seconds ago, where have you been???

Re:Boycott EV1Servers (2, Informative)

c1pher (586281) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431640)

"Better yet, let's Slashdot them!"

well we already have nuked their php/mysql forums..

Re:Boycott EV1Servers (4, Insightful)

ultrabot (200914) | more than 10 years ago | (#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).

Re:Boycott EV1Servers (5, Interesting)

JudgeFurious (455868) | more than 10 years ago | (#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)

Is this company based... (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431445)

In Soviet Russia?

I was about to rent.... (0, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431446)

I was just about to rent a server from them. good rates. but now I don't know

ooh yea. FP

Timothy

Re:I was about to rent.... (5, Informative)

athakur999 (44340) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431518)

I was thinking about EV1Servers but went with Server Matrix [servermatrix.com] instead. The prices are comparable and they give you more bandwidth.

yay first post (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431450)

lol

Users definetly upset. (5, Interesting)

johnhennessy (94737) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:Users definetly upset. (5, Insightful)

void* (20133) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:Users definetly upset. (0, Interesting)

chef_raekwon (411401) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431550)

how do we know that EV1 actually bought licenses?

with all the noise SCO is making, maybe they paid EV1 to say that they actually bought licenses....wouldnt put it past Darl and the Gang...

Re:Users definetly upset. (2, Insightful)

void* (20133) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431661)

It doesn't matter what the arrangement is.

What matters is that this hosting company is publicly saying that they have some arrangement with SCO, which will lend credence to SCO's claims in the minds of some.

They should be made to feel the pain - if their current customers say 'hey, I'm switching away from you because I don't want to give my money to a company that will support SCO's bull in any way, shape, or form" they will get the point.

Re:Users definetly upset. (5, Interesting)

roadies (748234) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431562)

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.

Re:Users definetly upset. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431635)

Just tell your friends that you aren't buying the license, but you appreciate that your server host is watching your back. When SCO wins, you won't like it, but you won't have any problems.

If you want to survive in this world, you need to be pragmatic. There has always been a distinct possibility that a court would find merit in SCO's claims, despite the protestations from the IANALs on /.. Lose the religion and you'll do just fine with this.

Re:Users definetly upset. (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431637)

I always told my friends that I'd never buy a SCO license - what do I tell them now.

Isn't it obvious? You tell them you are leaving EV1, and recommend that they refuse to deal with EV1 as well.

My Frost (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431452)

Frosty

FPFPFPFP (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431460)

FP AH!

Sweet! (1, Informative)

AsbestosRush (111196) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431462)

Forum already slashdotted!

Re:Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431539)

This [ev1servers.net] should be worth watching for an hour or so

Re:Sweet! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431559)

There seems to have been a slight problem with the database.

We apologise for any inconvenience.

wha? (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431465)

wwhhhaaa???

pr0n guys care about IP? w00t (-1, Troll)

BOOTSTRAPS (696869) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431467)

since when do the pr0n0graphers and warez kiddies care about intellectual property? (everyone knows those are the major clients of EV1)

Re:pr0n guys care about IP? w00t (-1, Troll)

BOOTSTRAPS (696869) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431588)

now ima troll :( sorry, i just meant to say...what the heck are they thinking? it's true, this will only end up hurthing their customers in the long-haul.

EV1 users upset... (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431469)

...at the fact that they suddenly can no longer access the support forums to complain of this affront to legal decency.

Something stinks about this (4, Interesting)

Camel Pilot (78781) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431472)

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.

So (4, Informative)

Pingular (670773) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431474)

paying $699 per license
699x12000=$13,980,000.
So they're paying almost 14 million dollars for nothing. Nice.

Re:So (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431593)

So they're paying almost 14 million dollars for nothing. Nice.

I doubt it. It's probably closer $1. It's not about the money for SCO, it's about setting an example.

I bet Kevin McBride is banging the CEO of EV1Servers.

Re:So (4, Interesting)

dafz1 (604262) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

Re:So (1)

FlashBac (720033) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431605)

I hate to state the obvious, but if a company actually paid this much money to a completely random gang of extorters, with the best will in the world you have to ask if they deserve to be in business. Its just so inconcievable, I cannot actually believe it.

Paying How Much? (2, Informative)

ls-lta (681694) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431657)

The article doesn't say, though does mention that they are getting a substantial discount. This could simply be a PR move for both companies.

And remember, there's no such thing as bad PR.

Re:So (1)

alienw (585907) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431662)

RTFA. They got an unspecified "volume discount". I doubt they paid even $20,000 for all the licenses. SCO is not exactly in a position to negotiate there, not to mention it might send the stock price through the roof.

You want me to Refresh? (5, Funny)

Johnny_Law (701208) | more than 10 years ago | (#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...

Re:You want me to Refresh? (2, Interesting)

indulgenc (694929) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431524)

It also says an email has been sent to their technical staff. I wonder if they've gotten a zillion emails about this now. . .

-i

Re:You want me to Refresh? (2, Funny)

phil reed (626) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431534)

Don't forget: An E-Mail has been dispatched to our Technical Staff, who you can also contact if the problem persists.. Not only is their web server melting down, but if this message is accurate, their mail server just exploded.

Re:You want me to Refresh? (1)

athakur999 (44340) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431561)

When I tried, there was an error message saying something about "an E-Mail message has been sent to our staff". Sweet, we get to Slashdot their web and email servers at the same time!

Re:You want me to Refresh? (3, Insightful)

cybermace5 (446439) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431581)

Now the EV1 users know just what kind of job their hosting service does. It should be a huge embarrassment for a hosting company to actually get Slashdotted. *nods wisely*

first ... (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431477)

... post!

yessir, yes it is.

Suggested mottos (5, Funny)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431484)

"EV1 Servers - Passing The Savings On To The Customer"

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

EV1Servers.net was known as Rackshack.net (5, Informative)

RocketJeff (46275) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431500)

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.

What does this do for SCO's legal case? (5, Interesting)

toygeek (473120) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431501)

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.

Thats good news (4, Interesting)

mnmn (145599) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431509)

...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.

Unbelievable (3, Interesting)

GMontag (42283) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431510)

What comes into the minds of these folks?

Even if SCO is right (sofar I doubt it, but I ain't no judge) it is not like they can get mountains of cash from every single user/operator.

Just plod along and ignore SCO, the same way the phone company or electric company does when you think that they owe *you* money. Even when it is time to pay up the damages are rarely cripling.

Does This Mean... (3, Interesting)

SeinJunkie (751833) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431515)

Will EV1 get their money back plus interest when SCO is shown to have made fraudulent claims? Or am I just wrong about that?

Customers Will Pay For It (5, Interesting)

BladeRider (24966) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431516)

They included the statement, "at our customers request." You can bet they'll be passing the cost of the license on to their customers.

Didn't complete the quote... (1)

Misch (158807) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431517)

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.... that their host is going to get slashdotted."

They have to. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431520)

As much as I hate to say this, It's a smart move to do this. It's not worth the risk to not comply if you a re a large company. The down-side is way to big to simply ignore it all.

Good Move Dorkos (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431533)

Companies that do shit like this are completely worthless. Watch those fucks go down the drain with yesterdays turds now. Who, in their right mind would make such a stupid decision? I'll tell you who, frightened people. They made this decision completely with C.Y.A. in mind. They didn't do it to assuage their customer's concerns, they did it to protect themselves, even though the whole SCO thing is a straw man. Stupid fucks deserve what they get and that will be a quick trip to bankrupt city.

Darl McBride is a fucker, and I personally challenge him to TRY and sue me you asshole. You are a liar. You are a coward. You are involved in criminal activity. You are an ugly bastard. You are completely corrupt and dispicable. And I can't wait until you get your come uppance. You stupid illegitmate fuckhole.

EV1Services clients : choose your new provider (4, Informative)

ErrorBase (692520) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431535)

This was the first thing I grabbed from google, no idea if it's fair or not, at least it's a better choice : Top ten [thehostingchart.com]. Host by others that do not support SCO's case (ask, so you can move again if they lie)

Now that they've paid their $699 licensing fee... (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431536)

Are they still cock-smoking teabaggers?

Stupid people (1)

dtfinch (661405) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431540)

If my host bought an SCO license they'd lose my business. I'd simply switch to another host.

Microsoft nehind this (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431544)

From Groklaw:
"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."

Good to see small guys win (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431545)

Even though most of the Slashdotters are opposed to intellectual property, few of them want to move to Russia or Malaysia, where such behavior is well-respected.

Good to see that SCO is finally getting what it deserves. McBride brought this Linux company out of 50c/share hell into well-respected player in open source community.

Former hosting company (2, Interesting)

Albanach (527650) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431546)

The lack of availability of their forums suggests they are a former hosting company.

Are there any other implications. I.e. they have a license for a binary kernel - does that mean it's okay for Linux et al to keep making the kernel, 'cause SCO are licensing people to use it? Of course they're only allowed to use a binary version - does that mean it's okay for RedHat and others to keep selling Linux, 'cause that's the only way SCO licensees can get hold of the binary kernel they've paid for?

They WERE the first... (5, Funny)

Roached (84015) | more than 10 years ago | (#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...

not exactly good for SCO.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#8431558)

I mean, this is the FIRST company, and they've been complaining/campaining for months. Surely this is just showing that the majority of companies out there are laughing it off until an actual result in court is shown. Hence, SCO's case isn't looking too strong for the majority of Linux users out there.

We can't protect you... (5, Funny)

Cheap Imitation (575717) | more than 10 years ago | (#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!

Refund? (0)

BlanketLord (753729) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431568)

If(when) SCO is deemed wrong in its desire to license linux, will those who bought licenses be entitled to refunds?

My letter to them today (sent a few hours ago) (4, Interesting)

Pengo (28814) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431580)

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

Re:My letter to them today (sent a few hours ago) (3, Funny)

Takara (711260) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431641)

It'll only take about 10 seconds to identify your message and send out a template reply. Instead, head over to ev1server's live support [ev1servers.net] and waste their time too.

Nothing to Crow About (1)

Kurt Wall (677000) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431589)

Talk about not knowing when to shut up!

Eliminating uncertainty from our clients' hosting infrastructure...

is nothing but the most transparent soundbyte of marketing spin. I'd be moving my data off their systems today.

Sure, Slashdot EV1... they're ready for it! (5, Insightful)

LostCluster (625375) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431597)

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... (5, Informative)

phil reed (626) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431601)

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.

hmmm... (4, Insightful)

dankinit (131249) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431608)

As much publicity as ev1servers.net is going to receive (negative, positive, regardless) having their servers not respond to a rush of traffic is not saying much for product...

They forgot the mantra (2, Funny)

DoofusOfDeath (636671) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431614)

Repeat after me, EV1Servers people...

"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."
"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."
"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."
"We don't negotiate with terrorists..."

I wish people would remember that... :)

Well.... (5, Interesting)

ZoneGray (168419) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431624)

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.

One interesting thing to note (5, Insightful)

Iphtashu Fitz (263795) | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

EV1 further announces a new acquisition (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 10 years ago | (#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.

liscense question (3, Funny)

happyfrogcow (708359) | more than 10 years ago | (#8431658)

So if SCO's GPL liscense has been revoked (atleast for nmap or whatever software package it was last week), and they sell their liscense to someone else, is that third party's GPL liscense also revoked since they are trying to apply a different liscense to GPL code?

IANA(i am not anything)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...