Reply to post:

Sovereignty? We've heard of it. UK government gives contract to store MI5, MI6 and GCHQ's data to AWS

max allan

So, government is going to need to employ huge numbers of staff to replace all the outsourced contracts it holds.

No. Never going to happen.

And how far does your "must be government" requirement go?

Do we need government cleaners? Government builders? Government made cars and bus and trains and drivers? If we can't have private companies writing software for government use : we need almost an entire Microsoft's worth of people writing a desktop operating system and apps. Or is it ok to use software from private companies?

And hardware? We need an Intel's worth of people to design and build CPUs and RAM and all the other chips you need for computers. Or is it OK for a private company to make and maintain hardware for government?

If we can use hardware and software from private companies, then we can use AWS.

Despite your opinions of Amazon, this deal is with AWS. Tarring them with the same brush is like saying your fingers are shitty because they're part of the same body as your arsehole.

The only professionals I've heard with bad things to say about aws are people who haven't actually used it "my mate says it is insecure because he had a computer from amazon and got a virus" or people who claim it is bad because <insert reason that boils down to them doing it wrong>. If you can get your AWS config wrong, you can get your on prem deployment wrong too and maybe you just aren't cut out for working in IT?

AWS is extremely secure when configured correctly. But a lot of people have failed to do that in the past because aws made it too easy for people to do stupid things. Now they have made it much harder (in the UI and on the CLI in some areas)

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon