Amazon: Trump photon-torpedoed our $10bn JEDI dream because he hates CEO Jeff Bezos Amazon has officially accused President Donald Trump of pressuring the Pentagon not to award it a $10bn cloud contract because he hates its CEO Jeff Bezos. “President Trump's intervention… puts the very integrity of the government procurement process in question,” Amazon Web Services said in a formal appeal [PDF] of the …
That BS that the DOD couldn't manage multiple vendors for this project was so weak. The government should lead by example and worked with multiple providers to work together in a standards compliant way that would of been better for all. This whole "we have to be locked in or else we can't do it" is just crap. They have billions of dollars for this thing. They should be using multiple independent vendors for all layers of the system.
This whole JEDI idea should be canned.
Not that I am any fan of public cloud quite the opposite really. I've even hosted my own email and websites for the past ~22 years on hardware that I own currently in a co-lo in the bay area.
Sole source of anything is a problem as it puts you at the mercy of your supplier. Then there's "store your data on someone's computer and they own your data". Does the DoD really believe that any outsourced computer is more secure than what they might have? Is there a guaranteed secured and encrypted line that runs only between the DoD and the outsourced computers?
"Is there a guaranteed secured and encrypted line that runs only between the DoD and the outsourced computers?"
Probably, I can't guarantee it is encrypted to an appropriate level but the GovCloud infrastructure has tightly controlled ingress/egress points and facilities can only be connected once they are FedRAMP approved. Internet access is controlled by multiple levels of firewalls and security systems in both directions and run to FedRAMP standards. This isn't public cloud.
For outsourcing, the DoD outsourced the majority of their systems in the 90's. This is tidying up a large chunk of the vendor mess from the last 20+ years rather than a new outsourcing arrangement.
This was presented as a single vendor solution by Oracle because it suited the picture Oracle were trying to paint. It's not.
a) this is for part of the DoD annual infrastructure spend (approx $1bn/year out of the ~$19bn-$25bn annual projected DoD budgets)
b) other vendors will definitely be involved, this is for the preferred supplier for GovCloud services and will likely reduce the number of data centres to AWS/Azure GovCloud facilities PLUS one data centre per state PLUS special project data centres - a total of ~220 data centres will be reduced to <90 with the majority of big providers still running some facilities.
c) the DoD has separately awarded contracts to Microsoft for Office365-type functionality. Awarding Microsoft the JEDI contract brings them closer to the single vendor model you mention.
d) the DoD currently manages multiple suppliers AND they have been screwing the DoD. Estimated "cloud" spending for 2019 is $1.2bn (note the saving if that was to reduced to $1bn...) and an estimated $1.5bn in 2020 with the expected cost of DoD GovCloud services without the JEDI contract in the order of $17bn-$22bn vs $10bn.
e) Microsoft can't deliver the required services to the DoD on day 1 - AWS can. This means some of the proposed savings will only happen if the contract goes to AWS because Microsoft are still building out their GovCloud facilities.
f) AWS GovCloud systems will need to be moved to Azure versus benefitting from lower negotiated rates. As AWS was the de facto GovCloud standard for the DoD for the last 2-3 years because of a lack of alternatives, this will reduce the savings and provide additional migration work to get systems into Azure.
g) This contract is primarily around cost control - most of the vendors have been screwing the DoD for years and this is the DoD screwing them back. Hence the legal fights.
h) for in-house vs outsourced, the DoD outsourced the majority of their data centre facilities in the mid-to-late 90's. That ship sailed a long time ago.
i) for security, the work Google and AWS have done to address existing security issues with DoD infrastructure has significantly increased security in the last ~10 years. The existing vendors said their disjoint security models provided adequate protection but upon review it turned out to be a very optimistic view. Google and AWS provided new models and comprehensive reviews that eventually fed into GovCloud as standards - the costs of bringing existing vendors up to these standards has been one of the primary drivers for reducing the number of vendors who have DoD access - they were overcharging and under delivering.
TL;DR: AWS were lowest cost AND best vendor for JEDI based on the requirements. Microsoft were also closely aligned with the DoD, just not for JEDI. Instead of saving money, JEDI under Azure will result in less vendor diversity and significantly reduced cost savings
Oh, you mean the parts that say "DoD also failed to recognize the proven benefits of AWS's Snowball Edge device" without any context but a load of redactions? Yeah, I read that. Cite one piece that *substantively* demonstrates any single piece of technical advantage that the DoD missed.
Just one.
It's not marketing, its taken from the appeal - the DoD said something wasn't available when it was:
"Under Factor 5 (Application and Data Hosting and P011ability), DoD irrationally
concluded that the <redacted> unique third-party marketplace offerings included in
A WS 's proposal would not be available at the time of award. In fact, AWS's proposal makes clear
the contrary is true <redacted> are available at award in the unclassified marketplace,
with many of these offerings also available at award in the classified marketplace."
"This is kind of awesome to watch Amazon on defense for a change"
(If this forum had attached images I'd attach one of a baby crying)
Personally I would expect the decision to have been an ECONOMIC one, and possibly one focused on entirely on RELIABIILITY. Maybe Microsoft and Azure is just BETTER?
MS already had a "Windows for Warships" kind of thing going. And it's also possible that the DOJ was concerned about SJW-types mucking with things in some kind of internal company politics... [yeah THAT doesn't ever happen, right Google?]
And while the public probably will NEVER know all of the details of the decision [some of which MAY actually be CLASSIFIED] I doubt Trump influenced the DOJ with any personal malice towards Bezos.
Still it makes for a fun read, with Bezos crying like a baby over this...
"Personally I would expect the decision to have been an ECONOMIC one, and possibly one focused on entirely on RELIABIILITY. Maybe Microsoft and Azure is just BETTER?"
Lets test each of those arguments:
- economic: in the last five years, a significant number of DoD applications have been migrated from legacy data centres to the AWS GovCloud. AWS was chosen because Azure GovCloud was (and still is) being fully stood up. Other vendors have captured some of the market (notably IBM and Oracle), however significant costs have been incurred by the DoD in getting some legacy facilities up to the required standard. JEDI is meant to simplify the majority of cloud hosting and reduce costs. For AWS that would involve negotiating rates because a large percentage of systems already live in AWS versus those systems being migrated to Azure - the time and effort required for those migrations will be an additional cost over using the AWS solution. And to repeat, if Azure wasn't 2-3 years behind AWS in GovCloud, this wouldn't be an issue but it was and it is.
- reliability: the four options consisted of AWS meeting all capacity and resilience requirements, Azure meeting minimum capacity and building out west coast resilience, hopefully completing this by 2020 or IBM/Oracle who would like the DoD to pay them to acquire land and build facilities. How do you plan to judge reliability based on those criteria because it sure looks like only one party can deliver and point to there operational record over the last 3+ years for the DoD and ~6+ years for other government departments?
- better: this is pretty subjective as it could be capacity based, tooling based or longevity based. AWS has the facilities to meet all of the DoD's forecast capacity requirements while Azure will need to acquire more facilities to scale up. For longevity, the DoD has been using AWS GovCloud for ~3 years because the facilities actually existed while Azure has had an East coast presence for a little over one year and a west coast presence that work started on in 2018, some capacity is available in 2019 and will be fully operational in 2020. For tooling, I would suggest that if the AWS tools weren't used, third party tools were used in the interim for the current environment so Azure will either work with current tooling or require new work flows.
Take a read of the Amazon document - even with the redactions there are some pretty significant issues such as the DoD justifying decisions based on incorrect tender versions or suggesting no exisant Microsoft services are better than operational AWS services.
Maybe it wasn't Trump interfering, maybe the DoD just decided to change the winner of the tender after 12 months based on a hunch?
Given that each additional year that JEDI drags out costs something north of $200m (the difference between the JEDI annual cap and current cloud spend), I would have thought the sensible approach would have been to reduce DoD IT costs. Like Bush Jr wanted in 2008.
In the meantime, the official impeachment process of Donald Trump - in which he has been accused of a blatant and sustained effort to use the power of his office to push personal animus and political objectives - started this week.
Is Esper the domestic Guilani?
4. Moreover, DoD arbitrarily and wrongly concluded that <Microsoft is a multidisciplinary technology company that is far more diverse in the capabilities they bring to market>. DoD also erroneously concluded that <Microsoft has the world's leading hybrid-cloud infrastructure solution> despite the fact that AWS was and still is the only contractor that has a <large hybrid-cloud that powers the CIA's Commercial Cloud Services (C2S)> proven approach for managing, developing, and deploying classified and unclassified cloud infrastructure and platforms at the scale contemplated by JEDI.
Until 6 days ago, Google wasn't FedRAMP approved for high security cloud facilities (https://www.techwire.net/sponsored/google-cloud-platform-is-now-fedramp-high-authorized.html)
Note that this doesn't mean Google weren't providing dedicated high security facilities to the US Government, it just meant that they could not offer general purpose services as part of something like JEDI.
Also, Google formally withdrew from the JEDI tender due to employee concerns over the use of its technology although I am a little suspicious of this given other projects Google is involved with. (https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-10-08/google-drops-out-of-pentagon-s-10-billion-cloud-competition)
After watching what's been happening in the world over the last many years - and that extends well beyond any the tenure of most heads of government - I feel that the standard of government would be much improved if, immediately after any head of government ended their tenure, a formal investigation were to be started as a matter of routine to determine whether any criminal offences were committed by their government whilst in power, maybe extend that to the election process by which they got there and, should any evidence be found prosecution would follow.
No political element as there is in impeachment and no possibility of interference which could be exerted whilst they're an incumbent. Just concentrate minds on whether they could, if need be, defend their actions in court against cross-examination.
>immediately after any head of government ended their tenure, a formal investigation were to be started as a matter of routine to determine whether any criminal offences were committed by their government whilst in power
Terry Pratchett has an even better solution:
“We put all our politicians in prison as soon as they’re elected. Don’t you?’
‘Why?’
‘It saves time.”
Whatever Trump is --- and obviously the impeachment will fail; he seems to have been orchestrating it from the start to make sure the Democrats lose credibility --- the antics of Bezos as world's richest man get ever more bizarre.
He dances up and down screaming endlessly at the president and throwing faeces; then turns around and whines "Y U no love me ?"
" ... and obviously the impeachment will fail ... "
Actually no it won't.
And you assertion that it will fail is flawed for one of the fallowing reasons .......
1) You haven't been paying attention.
2) That you belong to the Cult of Trump.
3) That you don't understand how the process works.
Impeachment is the House of Representatives finding facts ( and at this point, legally they are facts ) and indicting ( impeaching ) him.
Which to anyone paying attention is clearly going to happen.
So yes he will be Impeached ( at least that's my impression ).
Then we move to the Senate. Where he will be tried in front of the Chief Just of the Supreme Court of the United States.To be judged by the members of the Senate. And the Senate will vote to remove him or not. Which in my opinion they will not.
And they will not remove him simply because of party. And not in any way based on facts, evidence, testamony or the laws of the United States.
So yes he WILL be impeached. Just like Clinton was impeached.
Actually no it won't.
a *bit* off topic here (I'll attempt to remedy this), but if you define success as "convincing the senate to remove Trump" there's no way THAT will happen. You'd need 67 senators voting 'yes' to do that. Keep in mind when Clinton was impeached, for actually COMMITTING several crimes (lying under oath being a particular one, even got him dis-barred for a year), the senate would not remove HIM from office. Seriously the HR's "impeachment" is nothing less than a 'Schiff Show' as described by more reliable news organizations.
So depending on how you define 'success', i.e. "a vote to pass articles of impeachment" (will most likely happen) vs "the senate removes Trump from office" (snowball's chance in HELL of THAT happening), and the general view that the American public has over this obvious SHAM in the House of Representatives [while not addressing REAL issues like the US/Canada/Mexico trade agreement], it's a total LOSE for Demo[n,c][R,r]ats. (that last part is the key)
Anyway, you all brought it up. but if you don't believe what I'm saying here, I suggest checking out Fox News' latest headlines in that regard... the perspective might be "enlightening".
(and now steering this to be SOMEWHAT on-topic again)
Still I wouldn't put it past Bezos to execute influence over HR members (via lobbyists) to ADD HIS CLAIMS (related to the article) as another "article of impeachment" complete with secret hearings, scripted "testimonies", one-sided viewpoints, and laughable "charges".
[I've seen better con-jobs from street hustlers doing 3 card Monty, as compared to what Demo[n,c][R,r]ats are attempting to do with 'impeachment']
Anyway, you all brought it up. but if you don't believe what I'm saying here, I suggest checking out Fox News' latest headlines in that regard... the perspective might be "enlightening".
Really, bob? Quoting the Republicon's Ministry of Propaganda as a news source?!? (Remember, not even they claim to be a news organization...you do know that, don't you?) Do you actually expect anyone with an IQ above room temperature to bite?
Enlightening, yes. In much the same way as watching DDR1 (the East German television station that broadcasted primarily into West Germany) was "enlightening".
Democrats (and country club Republicans) have been openly dying to impeach Trump since before he was even elected. They did not and do not care about "facts, evidence, testamony or the laws of the United States" (in your words) themselves; they were willing to use *any* reason they could dream up. (They seemed offended to actually need a reason, in fact.)
They tried inserting Trump into their own bizarre sexual fantasies, that didn't work. They tried the Russia Russia Russia thing, that didn't work. Now they are trying this, and it will only (halfway) "work", if it does, because they control the House.
They didn't and don't care in the slightest about the actual "charges", they have simply been baying for blood all along.
May the Americans have the wisdom to vote intelligently.
Presupposes the Democrats can find a viable candidate to vote for, and there doesn't seem any more hope of that this time round than the last. Odds are the Orange one will be re-elected on the "better the devil you know" basis :-(
I beg to differ. The 2016 election featured two of the worst main-party candidates to have won their primaries in recent memory. At least two of the current top-tier Dem candidates (Biden and Buttigieg) are above that very low bar. Plus "the devil we know" is really worse than almost anyone expected, so while Republicans will hold their nose to vote for him, there are many more independents that will vote for "someone other than satan" this time around.
there are many more independents that will vote for "someone other than satan" this time around
Perhaps. But there aren't that many independents who vote, and it only matters in "swing states" anyway.
Also, pace jake, I still see a lot of people on social media (and I don't read a lot of social media) fervently supporting Trump. They're generally lower-middle-class types who either 1) believe Trump's "outsider" myth and believe that somehow makes them their ally (a splendid delusion on both counts and a fine example of the "big lie"), or 2) believe in his fear-mongering, isolationist, chest-thumping nationalism, which of course has been a staple of strong-man governments for centuries and has always been attractive to a certain type of scared, small-minded citizen.1 Those people would vote for Trump in 2020 if he were in prison. They'd probably vote for him if he were dead.
As usual, the Democratic Party's best hope is voter turnout in the swing states. They want to "energize" (ugh) their voters and a decent fraction of the independents, while discouraging the dedicated-Republican and Republican-leaning voters from making it to the polls. In this they're swimming against the tide of Republican-controlled state executive branches which have been working hard to disenfranchise traditionally-Democrat blocs. But a sufficiently attractive candidacy might yet do it for the Dems.
The Republican Party, on the other hand, just wants to keep doing what they're doing. It's unlikely any other strategy gives them a better chance of success. I imagine the strategists are just holding tight and hoping Trump's trade war doesn't hurt lower-middle-class consumers too hard before November.
And I don't think impeachment will affect the election significantly. Dedicated Trumpists already consider it an unjustified attack; impeachment by the House won't change their minds. Even if the Senate were to convict (which I rate as astonishingly unlikely), and Pence didn't pardon Trump (quite unlikely), Pence would probably skate in on Trump's coattails. And a Trump conviction would likely energize Republican voters, so it could quite plausibly be worse for the Democratic Party than an acquittal would be. An acquittal would likely improve Dem turnout.
1Curiously, Trump himself is not cut out to be a strong-man leader. He's very much a sub - witness his reliance on fawning cronies and his fetish for real strong-man types like Putin and Kim. But his handlers have helped him construct a strong-man facade to appeal to the more craven portion of the electorate. This is helpful for the real powers behind the executive, such as the core members of the Mercer family, who don't have to worry about Trump turning on them.
"May the Americans have the wisdom to vote intelligently."
I agree with that statement, as a set of words forming a sentence. But the details most likely differ from your interpretation.
I *think* with my brain, and *feel* with my fingers - and THINKING is how *I* define "intelligently" - and when liberals vote, they usually 'feel', not THINK - and 'feel' is how politicians all too often MANIPULATE people (via emotional hand grenades) into voting away their own freedom.
yeah that'd really fix things. It would also revive USENET (maybe alt.president.trump - heh). Then people would discover the TRUE freedom of USENET (or any other existing, free-er platform) and completely ABANDON Tw[a,i]tter. Yeah, maybe that'd be a GOOD thing...?
And 'silencing speech' like THAT might also get MORE (and more SERIOUS) 'unwanted' INVESTIGATIONS on the "social media empire" . [that TOO, might be a GOOD thing!]
Dorsey controls Twitter.
And, of course, suspending Trump's Twitter account would just play into the hands of the Republican Party strategists. Trump exists to excite his large base of supporters; anything anyone can spin into an attack on him gets them going. For that matter, the stream of Trump Twitter pronouncements does a pretty good job of exciting the Democratic Party supporters, so it's not clear that it provides all that much advantage to the Reps.
POTUS has a variety of bully pulpits. Taking one away would be ineffectual, and look petty in the bargain.
There is one commentard above complaining that photon torpedoes don't belong to Star Wars (indeed, they belong to Star Trek. Let it be known that they were introduced in 1967, a full ten years before Star Wars had proton torpedoes. See this full comparison of the technologies). I guess some people still get caught by the Reg's trolling...
I have no idea if Amazon's proposal was the best or not, but it is abundantly clear that Trump meddled with the process from the very beginning because he bore a grudge against Bezos and the Washington Post. And if their solution was the best then let the implication sink in - Trump just materially harmed the US (again) by saddling it with an inferior solution because of a personal grievance.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
