|
|
| EV1 Regrets, Novell Filing, and Kapor on SCO |
 |
|
Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 08:55 PM EST
|
EV1's Robert Marsh says he wouldn't do it again. Robert McMillan has the exclusive: "So how does Marsh feel about the deal nearly a month later? 'Would I do it again? No. I'll go on the record as saying that,' Marsh said. 'I certainly know a lot more today than I knew a month ago, in a lot of respects.'
Though Marsh admitted that EV1 has lost some hosting business since the deal, he said it is not out of line with the number of sites EV1 loses in a typical month. . . .
"The big loser in this matter may be SCO, said Dion Cornett, an analyst with Decatur Jones Equity Partners LLC, an equity research firm based in Chicago. Having their first publicly announced customer express second thoughts over the deal so soon after its announcement may make it difficult for SCO to sign up other customers, he said.
"'For Robert (Marsh) to say that he would not do the deal again, that's certainly going to be heeded by anyone that SCO talks to in the future,' Cornett said." It's certainly significant that they are having second thoughts despite business being up, according to Marsh's statement. InternetWeek is reporting some details of the Novell filing, saying Novell argues the slander of title action should be dismissed. They already said that, so this is their memorandum in support of their previously filed motion to dismiss. We should have the document itself by tomorrow. Pacer lists it, but the document itself is not available to the hoi polloi yet. Novell may have sent it to InternetWeek. Here's what the article says they are saying: "In the first part of its response, Novell lawyers argued that SCO has failed to show any written document verifying its claim that Novell transferred away ownership of its Unix or Unixware copyrights. "'SCO has not identified that written instrument,' the Novell papers said. 'Absent such a written instrument, ownership could not have transferred.' "The Novell papers also rebut any notion that passive copyright transfers took place. 'SCO's argument that the copyrights were transferred because the time to assign has come and gone is contradicted by the documents,' the filing stated."
Lotus founder Mitch Kapor spoke to a Python conference today and says that it's just a matter of time before open source becomes the predominant development model for software. In fact, he says that because of Microsoft, it's the only viable model for developing new applications for the desktop, because the road is littered with the corpses of proprietary competitors of MS. He did have some concerns:"While extolling the open-source approach to development, Kapor cautioned developers about potential roadblocks ahead for the [Python] language and for open source in general. The most dire problem, he said, is the need to maintain funding for research and development.
"'An increased focus on sustainable support is at the top of the list' of concerns for the open-source community, Kapor said. He warned that 'free riders'—businesses that used open source as a major component of their business operations but fail to contribute anything back to the community—could doom open-source projects to 'slow starvation.' "Kapor also warned of the growing legal threats concerning software patents and intellectual property claims. But he noted that lawsuits such as those from The SCO Group are also symptomatic of open source's success. 'You know you're (really successful) when the big-time parasites show up,' he said, to much applause."
|
|
|
|
| Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:24 PM EST |
(eom)
---
IANBAHD--I Ain't Nothin' But A Hound Dog (A Smart One, Tho).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:25 PM EST |
(eom)
---
IANBAHD--I Ain't Nothin' But A Hound Dog (A Smart One, Tho).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: joshua on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:28 PM EST |
I am not so concerned with how many customers they lost.
I am curious the long term impact this will have on their business model, and
how many customers will refrain from signing up because of EV1's
"betrayal." Marsh is trying to backtrack now and win back the
confidence of future customers just as their huge datacenter goes online (and
presumably more rack spots they want to fill as a result).
-joshua[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Upholder on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:30 PM EST |
Most of the business that EV1 loses won't be overnight. Large sites take time
to move... first one must find a suitable place to relocate to. Then you need
to make sure that the new system is ready to take the sites to be moved.. and
then the move itself.. and testing afterward to be certain that things are
properly transferred before the old site is removed.
I run two boxes directly at ev1 and have root on 3 more. The two that I run are
being moved this week -- but Ev1 won't see them cancelled until sometime next
month. The other three might not move this month or next month.. but they will
move sooner or later.
Anyway, he may have realized his mistake, but now that the avalanche has
started, it's too late to stop it.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- EV1 customers ..who are they - Authored by: webster on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:56 PM EST
- EV1 customers leaving EV1... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 10:39 PM EST
- and customers not joining EV1... - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 10:50 PM EST
- Too hard on EV1? - Authored by: emmenjay on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 11:43 PM EST
- Why punish the repentant. - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 11:44 PM EST
- Why punish the repentant. - Authored by: captainhaddock on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST
- Why punish the repentant. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 12:55 AM EST
- Look at this logically - Authored by: mobrien_12 on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 01:54 AM EST
- because ... - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 02:14 AM EST
- Why punish the repentant. - Authored by: Bystander on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 03:17 AM EST
- Why punish the repentant. - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 03:52 AM EST
- It's not punishment, it's self-protection - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 04:50 AM EST
- Why punish the repentant. - Noone is! - Authored by: theswede on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 05:28 AM EST
- Why punish the repentant. - Authored by: blacklight on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 05:53 AM EST
- if business is good why keep talking to the press? - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 02:57 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:31 PM EST |
Hi,
Here's the URL:
<http://www.computerworld.com/securitytopics/security/
story/0,10801,88646,00.html> (a reprint from CIO.com).
Here's the quote I found fuddish (on page4):
"..A full-blown security reformation would mark a triumph over the
"tragedy of the commons," the dilemma that bedevils Internet security
today. A principle in ecology, the tragedy of the commons states that individual
short-term benefit trumps collective long-term benefit. That is, I will let my
sheep graze on the commons to increase my personal wealth even if it contributes
to the degradation of the commons as a whole.."
I remember a thread or an article from a Groklaw posting that claimed OSS was
more secure than u-know-who. If you find it, please forward it to me or to -
Scott Berinato, Senior Writer
sberinato@cio.com
Idontdowindows[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- FUD Alert - Groklawers' help needed! - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:44 PM EST
- FUD Alert - Groklawers' help needed! - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:50 PM EST
- A principle in ecology - not - Authored by: star-dot-h on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:58 PM EST
- FUD Alert - Groklawers' help needed! - Authored by: Xenographic on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 10:16 PM EST
- FOSS vs. TotC - Authored by: jbb on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 11:30 PM EST
- Tragedy of the Commons and other tales of woe? - Authored by: jdg on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 11:55 PM EST
- Parent is stupid - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 04:28 AM EST
- FUD Alert - Groklawers' help needed! - Authored by: mscibing on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 04:33 AM EST
- FUD Alert - Groklawers' help needed! - Authored by: soronlin on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 08:25 AM EST
- On the creative commons side - Authored by: JSGasse on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 12:14 PM EST
- FUD Alert - Groklawers' help needed! - Authored by: darkonc on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:35 PM EST |
Well next to last anyway.
"SCO officials were not immediately available for comment."
Now that line blows me away! They are always first in line to spit our some FUD.
I wonder if they take the duct tape off of Darl's mouth and untie his hands to
feed him one a day. They better be careful though, he bites. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Weeble on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:41 PM EST |
...they've just proven the old adage that no one is totally worthless, they can
always serve as a bad example.
---
IANBAHD--I Ain't Nothin' But A Hound Dog (A Smart One, Tho).[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 09:52 PM EST |
How did a guy at a company deals with the web manage to get all the wrong
information ?[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, March 25 2004 @ 11:23 PM EST |
"The most dire problem, he said, is the need to maintain funding for
research and development."
I think this will be partly handled by governments. I think what is going to
happen in the next year or two is the various goverments that are supporting oss
will form an association to coordinate their efforts. They will develop a legal
strategy, decide what software needs to be produced so they can escape
completely from Microsoft, and also do other things like usability work. After
that they will start funding research and development.
They will do all this because it will bring them benefits far outweighing any
costs. For instance, suppose a programer in China costs $10,000 (salary, office
space, supervision, etc). 10,000 full-time programers would cost a hundred
million dollars a year, which is chickenfeed for a country the size of China.
Now think what that many programers could do. They could assign 250 to
OpenOffice, 250 to wine, 250 to each of the desktops, and so on. And of course
many other countries could likewise contribute programers.
For this relatively minor cost the countries could save many billions for
proprietary software from Microsoft and other companies. And they would go
beyond replacing present software to developing new programs because that would
bring them further benefits. Imagine Microsoft being buried under an avalanche
of open source software.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lachoneus on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 12:26 AM EST |
There is an interesting article, Intellectual Property in the Real World,
that further elaborates on Kapor's comments about proprietary and open source
development models (the link takes you to the section that discusses
this):
http://www.russ.za
yda.net/realworld.html#moving_beyond
Excerpt from the
article:
"The concept of critical mass is key to understanding both the
viability of the proprietary software model as well as its limitations. Without
the critical mass necessary to drive development of an open source
product/solution, the proprietary model will remain the most cost-effective
means of software production. Thus, contrary to Microsoft's dire predictions,
proprietary software will always remain a viable and productive part of the
economy.
For projects that are able to sustain critical mass, however,
open source will inevitably eclipse proprietary software development. This is a
market reality because over time, market forces will justify exorbitant
expenditures (such as Microsoft's $1 billion spent on development of Windows
2000) only when there is no viable alternative. Linux has proven to be a viable
alternative; hence, Microsoft is no longer necessary. It may have tremendous
inertia, but inertia does not equal essentiality. Economies of scale will always
favor open source solutions when their projects achieve critical mass."[ Reply to This | # ]
|
- Kapor on SCO - Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 02:33 AM EST
| |
| Authored by: webster on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 01:15 AM EST |
Dear Mr. Marsh,
You can't have it both ways. Buying SCO's license and then regretting the fact
packs all the charm of a flatulent wimp. [Forgive the name calling PJ, Groklaw.
Just keepin' it real.]
Show some spine and convert some (at least seven) of your Microsoft deals to
Linux and don't buy further licenses. You would be making a statement. It
might impress those that might be in the process of shunning you and your
customers. You might even attract some concerted patronage since this would
stick you out front as a potential SCO target. [Tho' they are shy of end
users.]
How 'bout it, Marsh?
---
webster[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 04:57 AM EST |
'Would I do it again? No. I'll go on the record as saying that,' Marsh said.
I would hope not, or no lesson learned.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: lifewish on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 08:59 AM EST |
I am extremely depressed - I've just discovered my old secondary school, which
has just had a new website built, is hosting it on ev1 servers. Of course, given
the reaction of my mum (a school governor) to the whole issue (along the lines
of "Open Sauce? Yeah, I've been telling people to put the lid back on the
bottle. But what's MS got to do with that?") there's no chance of anything
being done to switch.
Dammit, I coulda designed their website (www.waingels.org) in my spare time :(
It'd have been better too, and I'd have put it on a server with no morality
issues.
---
------------------
"Diplomacy: the art of saying 'Nice doggy' until you can find a stick" - Wynn
Catlin[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: tz on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 09:44 AM EST |
Businesses regularly give directly and give employee time to community
beautification and other similar projects. They should learn to do this for
cyberspace. Encourage the IT guys to spend some time contributing back to
opensource.
[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 03:38 PM EST |
If Robert Marsh really regrets it, he would give as much money to the FSF as he
did to SCO. This would be a proof his regrets are not just the tears of the
businessman.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: darkonc on Friday, March 26 2004 @ 11:26 PM EST |
| Some time earlier, I said that the nastiest thing that Marsh could probably
legally do to SCO would be to publicly denounce the license plan... Now that
he's done precisely that, I put myself on the record as saying -- too bad, let
him burn.
Now I look back on those two statements, and I think.... "I think
I'm getting into inconsistent attitude territory".
So now I'm thinking that,
if he backs up his regrets with positive action, like an equivalent donation to
the FSF or the OSF, I think it'd be fair to say that he's done his pennance, and
effectively undone his damage to the linux community.
Any thoughts on
that? ---
Powerful, committed communication. Touching the jewel within each
person and bringing it to life.. [ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, March 27 2004 @ 10:02 AM EST |
An increased focus on sustainable support is at the top of the list' of
concerns for the open-source community, Kapor said.
It seems to
me that the fact that the source is open and available in and of itself
guarantees sustainable support. You will always be able to hire a programmer to
support it for you.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Monday, March 29 2004 @ 05:02 PM EST |
"While extolling the open-source approach to development, Kapor cautioned
developers about potential roadblocks ahead for the [Python] language and for
open source in general. The most dire problem, he said, is the need to maintain
funding for research and development."
Maintain funding for research and development ?... the whole opensource movement
has been on no funding in general. People have contributed their work, and made
changes to others work for *free-of-charge*. The R&D was done by the
collective opensource community. Now that the money can be made with opensource,
no one can think about R&D now unless money is brought into the picture. [
For proprietary eyes only ].
Wrong: The MOST dire problem opensource faces, is to stay "true"
opensource throughout the future. With licenses changed, and more
"commercial opensource", it will be something to see if opensource is
alive and well in five years; and has not become a commercial
"dot-com" start-up flop. The crime in such a future for opensource,
would be never knowing how well it could have been.[ Reply to This | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
