Well, allow me to update you :) They made a mistake (actually their CEO did), and they appologized publically and cancelled all the licensing issues with SCO - so the story ends..
You CAN install anything you like in those machines. Just for the fun I switched the machine I had there from RHEL 3 update 5 to RHEL 4 and to Fedora 4, and went back to RHEL update 5. I can compile any kernel that I want and use it. Furthermore, their agreement with you doesn't mention anything related to which kernel to run on the rented machine - be it 2.0, 2.2, 2.4 or the latest 2.6 with -mm patches - do whatever you want to do, crash the machine as much as you want (you get KVM services for free). Thanks, Hetz On 10/7/05, Omer Zak <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > The important issue is the terms of the SCO Linux "license" which EV1 > bought. > > AFAIK, the terms of the SCO Linux "license" (which become binding once > the document is signed and becomes a contract from legal point of view) > are such that EV1 are permitted to use only a certain binary-only > version of Linux kernel. I assume that this is binding also upon their > customers. > > In other words, if you host your Web site in EV1 and want to use your > choice of Linux kernel, then their agreement with SCO would block you > from using the kernel of your choice. > > This, if I got my facts straight, renders EV1 service much worse than > the service available from other ISPs. > > Again, I do not know the current legal status, and whether they > officially voided their "license". > --- Omer > > On Fri, 2005-10-07 at 12:38 +0200, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > > Some managers are fools. I've been working with quite few stupid > > managers in various jobs and places :) > > > > Does this means EV1 service is bad? does this means any other > > problems? I don't think so. > > > > Their management goofed. Happened with almost ANY management in the > > world (specially when you treat PR crap as news). Go to their web site > > today and try to find a single SCO server that their selling.. > > > > Try to think forward - if a hosting A company is super friendly to > > Linux, but charges quite more then hosting B company which offers a > > mix of Windows/Linux - which will you pick? Will you pay more just > > because company A is friendlier to Linux? > > > > Hetz > > > > On 10/7/05, Oron Peled <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Friday, 7 בOctober 2005 12:18, Hetz Ben Hamo wrote: > > > > I found that EV1 are much cheaper, > > > > > > Just a reminder: These were the people that jumped on the SCO > > > bandwagon and bought SCO "licenses" to use Linux: > > > http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20040322133607169 > > > > > > The market has enough alternatives, so it's easy not to fund > > > these clueless morons... > -- > MS-Windows is the Pal-Kal of the PC world. > My own blog is at http://www.livejournal.com/users/tddpirate/ > > My opinions, as expressed in this E-mail message, are mine alone. > They do not represent the official policy of any organization with which > I may be affiliated in any way. > WARNING TO SPAMMERS: at http://www.zak.co.il/spamwarning.html > > > ================================================================= > To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with > the word "unsubscribe" in the message body, e.g., run the command > echo unsubscribe | mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >
