11–20 of 96 posts
It's Oracle. Safra is super close to the administration [1]. The only reason this contract is out of the hands of Booz Allen et al is Oracle. This might be the worst-kept tech secret in D.C. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-12/trump-tea...
Looking at Oracle's website, after getting past the hilarious Cookies Policy modal prompt, you really wouldn't think they were genuinely in the cloud business. It just looks like sales fodder with no substance behind it.
Some other AWS-only requirements:
* exactly 32gb of RAM. Google promises 30, Azure promises 28. We all know how realistic this isn't. * 150 miles between data centers. This arbitrary number is exactly what Amazon advertises. Others can manage 100 miles, or 130, but this number comes right out of Amazon's advertising package.
Not to mention the idiotic idea of a single provider solution.
On the other hand, this is a 10 year contract worth about 1% of Amazon, Google, or Microsoft's bottom line in one year. So there's a bit of mountain/molehill going on here
I’ve been getting what I assume are geotargeted ads for this http://monopolyamazon.com/ for months on twitter (I work a block from the White House). For example https://twitter.com/setonmotley/status/981262337905602560?s=...
Well... To be fair, it's an AWS spec sheet reworded as an RFP. Other cloud providers - even Google and Microsoft - can't meet the requirements, because they don't have the same marketing jargon. For example, there's a requirement in the RFP for a "ruggedized" storage product. That's a made up word that Amazon uses to describe AWS Snowball, so no other company satisfies the requirement. Some other AWS-only requirement…
https://cloud.google.com/compute/docs/instances/creating-ins...
It's Oracle. Safra is super close to the administration [1]. The only reason this contract is out of the hands of Booz Allen et al is Oracle. This might be the worst-kept tech secret in D.C. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-12/trump-tea...
Well... To be fair, it's an AWS spec sheet reworded as an RFP. Other cloud providers - even Google and Microsoft - can't meet the requirements, because they don't have the same marketing jargon. For example, there's a requirement in the RFP for a "ruggedized" storage product. That's a made up word that Amazon uses to describe AWS Snowball, so no other company satisfies the requirement. Some other AWS-only requirement…
Your points are all the ones raised in that... wapo? nyt? article that you're alluding to, which was discussed here and found to be largely nonsense, IMO. For example, that 28/30/32GB thing is wrong. Are you really saying GCP and Azure don't offer 32GB options? That's a totally standard and common configuration these days.
Looking at Oracle's website, after getting past the hilarious Cookies Policy modal prompt, you really wouldn't think they were genuinely in the cloud business. It just looks like sales fodder with no substance behind it.
It's Oracle. Safra is super close to the administration [1]. The only reason this contract is out of the hands of Booz Allen et al is Oracle. This might be the worst-kept tech secret in D.C. [1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-12/trump-tea...
The complaint alleged Oracle has been coercing customers to adopt its cloud services, to inflate revenue and hide market disinterest.
"In truth, Oracle drove sales of cloud products using threats and extortive tactics," the complaint, filed on Friday, stated. "The use of such tactics concealed the lack of real demand for Oracle’s cloud services, making the growth unsustainable (and ultimately driving away customers)."
https://www.theregister.co.uk/2018/08/13/oracle_sued_cloud_n...