Cloud-slingers get 3-week extension to pitch for Pentagon's JEDI contract The Pentagon has pushed back the deadline for its $10bn cloud services contract by three weeks. Vendors planning to bid for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure (JEDI) contract – to cover different levels of secrecy and classification across all branches of the US military – will now have until 9 October. The US …
"Use the Farce, Luke"
"Let go of your conscious thoughts & act on stupid..."
"Your overcapitalisation is your weakness..."
"Your faith in Crapita is yours..."
I could go on, but what's the point?
Outsourcing (whether meatbag or otherwise) is one of the few places where AI might actually be useful to rid end users of the joys of systems specced & installed by telephone sanitizers (on their night job). But sadly it'll be programmed by other telephone sanitizers (on their night job(because good coders are expensive, y'all)) - so it'll all even out in the end.. We'll still get crap, and they'll still get a 3000% markup.
They've screwed it up in-house, and of course, it'll be even worse outsourced. The only way that's not the case is if the contractor does better vision management and systems design than the customer - and can enforce that, which is exceedingly unlikely - even the customer doesn't understand what the best solution would be here, and who knows their issues better?
A good insight here: "critics object" are not named, but are there any without ties to one of the contractors unlikely to win the bid? Bueller? Anyone? Dontcha love the spin that implies some nameless source with great judgement is calling out some error (but never specifically). It's rare any entity without an agenda gets heard at all these days, outside things like this comment section - and some of the people here have agendas too (I'm not guilt-free myself).
Yeah, putting all your eggs in one basket is often stupid...but if the problem was in large part due to lack of coordination, then many baskets (the way things are) can be worse. This isn't a simple problem..
It's more complex than that wildly successful F-35 program with the trivial logistics issues, right? Oh, wait!
The temptation to allow or deliberately produce lock-in will be overwhelming, and and again, we'll find out who truly has the power here - how'd that attempt to break up Microsoft go, again? Or the breakup of the monolithic AT&T, which after a few years came back as Verizon....we just lost Bell Labs, no big deal, they never did any good, right?
And inevitable, as no one's going to want to take the time for a proper design anyway. As is usual with these things, some existing methodology will be jam fit to the situation, and will be a poor fit - no matter how this eventuates.
Reading this I should have posted as amanfromneptune or something...
On one level, obviously not. No one is going to look out for #1 with more motivation than #1.
And with a multinational company - whoever it is - #1 ain't the USA, though it might be on up there on the list. Profits and job security are going to be above it a good bit.
On a deeper level it comes down to who owns who and why any war might be fought - in other words, who is getting the profit from "war is a racket"? Following the money gets interesting, if difficult.
in other words, who is getting the profit from "war is a racket"? Following the money gets interesting, if difficult.
I think in this case, following the money got simple. Like a qualifying condition in the RFP that required bidders to demonstrate they met or exceeded only the kinds of cloudy pork revenues that Amazing War Solutions could show. But hey ho, someone has to beat Larry into becoming the world's first trillionaire.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2025
