Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Much To Oracle's Chagrin, Pentagon Names Microsoft and Amazon as $10B JEDI Cloud Contract Finalists (techcrunch.com)

Posted by msmash on from the how-about-that dept.

The Pentagon this week announced two finalists in the $10 billion, decade-long JEDI cloud contract process -- and Oracle was not one of them. From a report: In spite of lawsuits, official protests and even back-channel complaining to the president, the two finalists are Microsoft and Amazon. "After evaluating all of the proposals received, the Department of Defense has made a competitive range determination for the Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure Cloud request for proposals, in accordance with all applicable laws and regulations. The two companies within the competitive range will participate further in the procurement process," Elissa Smith, DoD spokesperson for Public Affairs Operations told TechCrunch. She added that those two finalists were in fact Microsoft and Amazon Web Services (AWS, the cloud computing arm of Amazon).

32 of 56 comments (clear)

  1. A good sign... by EndlessNameless · · Score: 4, Interesting

    At least the government is capable of making good decisions from time to time.

    Amazon and Microsoft are leaders in the cloud industry for a reason.

    I'd pity anyone who got stuck with Oracle's service.

    --

    ---
    According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
    1. Re:A good sign... by Freischutz · · Score: 2

      At least the government is capable of making good decisions from time to time.

      Amazon and Microsoft are leaders in the cloud industry for a reason.

      I'd pity anyone who got stuck with Oracle's service.

      With a bit of luck Larry Ellison will spontaneously combust and burn to a neat pile of ashes, like a vampire exposed to sunlight, out of sheer annoyance over this development.

    2. Re:A good sign... by KlomDark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Why? I've worked with both AWS and Azure, and I'd personally pick Azure as the better service.

      Is this just some archaic "MS Bad" shit from the 1990s, or do you have actual facts?

    3. Re:A good sign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I doubt the DoD subscribes to your 1990s religious crusade and uneducated perceptions of "The Micro$shaft"

    4. Re:A good sign... by cayenne8 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Why? I've worked with both AWS and Azure, and I'd personally pick Azure as the better service.

      Is this just some archaic "MS Bad" shit from the 1990s, or do you have actual facts?

      So far it is experience.

      First, in our case, it was bad choice to try to move a predominately RHEL system of systems to a MS platform. It just plain isn't as friendly to RHEL as we would like.

      If you are a MS shop, likely as not, you would do better in Azure.

      So far, in Azure, we've had them basically kick the power cord out from under a BUNCH of systems, even on different availability sets....black out, power down, too most of a morning to come back online.

      They fsck up in Azure. That's not supposed to happen.

      So far, they are not that responsive.

      I don't know as much about AWS, only the shortcomings of MS Azure so far.

      We came from a VMWare setup, where you could easily snapshot a VM and restore it if needed. This isn't quite as easy on Azure.

      And trying to get a VM custom rigged with the exact CPUs and RAM you need, is impossible, they have pre configured VMs, and you have to choose from them...can't dynamically add RAM or CPU...has to take a whole step up in VM configs they offer. If you need one with only more RAM, you are SOL....it comes with much more CPU too, and of course, much higher monthly $$$'s.

      I suppose if you are coming into Azure, with mostly MS windows servers, it would be easier. If you can buy preset items from their 'store' offerings, I supposed it is nice.

      But if you are predominately a RHEL outfit..if you depend on Oracle and not MSSQL...if you have a lot of custom apps and server configurations you are moving from a regular data center to Azure cloud, well, it is definitely PAINFUL.

      Oh...and often for unexplained reasons....their VMs get really SLOOOOOW...command line take a long time to react even.

      And they aren't really good at telling you when they are doing things to the hosts underneath you...and you can find problems with your servers that are hard to track down...till you can find out MS did something under the covers without telling you.

      Yeah..its painful.

      I've not used AWS yet...but I have to imagine in our case, it would have been a bit more friendly and easy to transition to.

      --
      Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........
    5. Re:A good sign... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      In spite of lawsuits, official protests and even back-channel complaining to the president, the two finalists are Microsoft and Amazon.

      Yes, and this is even *before* they're an Oracle customer. I think that kind of signals "We're the sort of 'partner' you'd cut your arm off to escape."

    6. Re:A good sign... by scdeimos · · Score: 1

      And trying to get a VM custom rigged with the exact CPUs and RAM you need, is impossible, they have pre configured VMs, and you have to choose from them...can't dynamically add RAM or CPU...has to take a whole step up in VM configs they offer. If you need one with only more RAM, you are SOL....it comes with much more CPU too, and of course, much higher monthly $$$'s.

      AWS isn't any different here. These are not on-prem systems running in ESXi where you can just change allocations in vCenter or vSphere - it's a shared hosting environment.

    7. Re:A good sign... by LostMyBeaver · · Score: 1

      If you buy into AWS, you are stuck with AWS... even the "offline versions" are half assed and held together with duct tape and crazy glue. The only possible way to run AWS is if you have the entire operations team at Amazon constantly tweaking, tuning and running around changing hardware.

      If you buy into Azure, you have the option to fallback on Azure Stack... while you'll still be stuck with MS from now and to forever, you have the option to host it yourself or on a separate provider.

      Right now, the only fiscally responsible decision for "cloud solutions" is actually Azure because you can in fact run it offline and have some minimalistic amount of control over your own future.

      I actually do a lot of cloud projects and while I use a lot of Docker and sometimes even Kubernetes if I really have to, these are just tiny little bits of a platform. A proper cloud solution starts with storage first... this means object storage, document storage, table storage. It centralizes all aspects of "cloud scale" scaleout of this storage. Then it provides a networking backend that companies like Cisco would call SDN but cloud vendors would just call networking. Then they provide container and VM orchestration.

      You can build your own "cloud service" if you really want to, but the work to do it is VERY VERY expensive and requires companies 100% devoted to it. This is what made IBM CICS/DB2/RPG/COBOL so amazingly successful for so long. It takes a mega corporation to build and maintain this.

      On the other hand, you can buy Azure Stack or rent online... and skip all that crap and ditch most of your IT operations staff.

  2. Huh, weird by Ecuador · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Weird, I thought Oracle would tick all of government's boxes. I mean, I thought potential for unthinkably ballooning costs is what usually gets you government contracts?

    --
    Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    1. Re:Huh, weird by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Funny

      Weird, I thought Oracle would tick all of government's boxes. I mean, I thought potential for unthinkably ballooning costs is what usually gets you government contracts?

      They were okay with Oracle charging them per CPU but balked when Oracle changed it to per CPU Register.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  3. As it should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Both have FedRAMP, both have strong privacy and security policies, and neither is Oracle or IBM. All is right in the world.

    1. Re:As it should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The phrase that comes to mind is, "Your reputation precedes you."

    2. Re:As it should be by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Imagine a company that's so shit that techies think Amazon and Microsoft are the better choice. And they actually aren't even wrong.

  4. Oracle sues in 3... by IWantMoreSpamPlease · · Score: 1

    ...2.....1

    At least this is how I understand Oracle behaves when they lose big contracts.

    --
    So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.
    1. Re:Oracle sues in 3... by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      The rumor is Oracle has more lawyers than technicians.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    2. Re:Oracle sues in 3... by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Its government procurement, they'll be told to sit down until it is rebid in X years.

    3. Re:Oracle sues in 3... by PPH · · Score: 1

      Just like the Northrop Grumman/EADS KC-30 contract.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    4. Re:Oracle sues in 3... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 1

      In government procurement, the best strategy is to go over the heads of the bureaucrats, and appeal directly to congress. That is how Boeing won the KC-X contract despite an inferior plane at an inflated price.

      The Speaker of the House represents Oracle's home state, so that is a good place to start. She controls DoD's pursestrings.

    5. Re:Oracle sues in 3... by Areyoukiddingme · · Score: 1

      Oracle sues in 3...2.....1

      They already did. They sued the government in December in the United States Court of Federal Claims.

      The judge granted a stay of the lawsuit requested by the DoD while they investigated possible conflicts of interest.

      The DoD completed their investigation and decided there were no conflicts of interest, but there may have been other ethics violations. Presumably the DoD's report is controlling in the lawsuit, though nobody has said yet what the disposition of the lawsuit will be.

  5. Amazon by darkain · · Score: 1

    Huh. Thanks for that explanation in the summary, I have absolutely no idea that Amazon was part of Amazon.

    1. Re:Amazon by Ecuador · · Score: 1

      Don't be a smart-ass, it says "Amazon Web Services" is part of Amazon. Unlike dozens of unrelated companies with "Amazon" in their name (the UK-only search returns ~400, like Amazon Tech, Amazon Cars, Amazon Enterprise etc).

      --
      Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent. Polar Scope Align for iOS
    2. Re:Amazon by darkain · · Score: 1

      And yet, Microsoft is just "Microsoft" instead of "Azure"

    3. Re:Amazon by Sir_Eptishous · · Score: 1

      Don't be a smart-ass, it says "Amazon Web Services" is part of Amazon. Unlike dozens of unrelated companies with "Amazon" in their name (the UK-only search returns ~400, like Amazon Tech, Amazon Cars, Amazon Enterprise etc).

      Exactly.

      Like...
      Amazon Personal Jet Packs
      Amazon Fresh Flowers
      Amazon Incontinence Products

      --
      We play the game with the bravery of being out of range
  6. Re:I'm surprised... by ShanghaiBill · · Score: 2

    As much as Trump hates Jeff Bezos, I am surprised that Amazon was even a contender.

    Many people inside DoD detest Trump. He has denigrated veterans, and many were appalled at the way he treated James Mattis, who was very popular inside DoD. This is the Deep State pushing back.

  7. My money is on Azure by edi_guy · · Score: 2

    There is a very personal grudge between the current Whitehouse and associates against all things Bezos. Best AWS can hope for is to sue for time and hope there is a changing of the guard.

    1. Re:My money is on Azure by Gilgaron · · Score: 4, Funny

      As long as anything the President has to see just says "AWS" they'll slip on through. He'll have a Jedi Cloud for the Space Force powered by AWSome as far as he's concerned.

  8. That's because.. by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 4, Funny

    ...they decided that Oracle would be much more appropriate for the SITH contract.

  9. Re:I'm surprised... by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 1

    many were appalled at the way he treated James Mattis

    A lot more were unsurprisingly appalled by Mr. Bone Spurs's treatment of John McCain even after McCain had died.

    This is the Deep State pushing back.

    Or maybe it's just behavior that a cast member of "The Real World" would've been ashamed of.

  10. Re:I'm surprised... by gtall · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Or how about Asshole picking on Bush Sr.'s DEAD wife. Then he recently took a shot a George Washington, apparently he was stupid for not naming Mt. Vernon after himself. Uh...I guess an entire fucking city doesn't count, and he didn't even have to put his name on it. It was named for him out of respect.

    There's something we'll never see, something named for Trump out of respect.

  11. On the other side of the globe, agencies celebrate by ffkom · · Score: 1

    ... the age where military data and infrastructure have become soft targets, with any security concerns outsourced into oblivion. Meanwhile at Intel, new "enclaves" and "management engines" are being designed that allow malware to be installed and hidden even more persistently and undetectable.

  12. Worry not, Oracle. by Hallux-F-Sinister · · Score: 1

    Master Qui-Gon Jinn will take you on and train you as a JEDI anyway.

    If anything happens to him, his padawan Obi Wan Kenobi will take over for him, and I’m sure that’ll all turn out fine.

    The Force WILL be with you, Oracle. Always.

    --
    Our reign has gone on long enough. Indeed. Summon the meteors.
  13. What do you expect? by yodleboy · · Score: 1

    Funny how Microsoft has embraced a less predatory way of doing business but Oracle is not only stuck in the 90s, they are still refining the tactic.