Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

blogs.microsoft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 156 posts

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#141

Post by chucky_z »

jedieaston wrote: post #102
chucky_z wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AWS does offer AD as a first class citizen... More than Azure. AzureAD is not Active Directory, and unless something has changed a lot in the last year (maybe it has?), Azure does not offer anything that looks, smells, and feels like on-prem AD in the cloud.

Azure Active Directory Domain Services is full-fat AD, but they market it towards only using it for services in Azure. But you can set up a VPN from Azure to join on-prem stuff (or to replicate existing AD to Azure). https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/active-directory-doma...

That's good to hear! I really wanted "hosted AD" from a cloud a few years ago, and Azure definitely did not offer this... or they marketed it so poorly I could not find it anywhere. :(

AWS has straight up guides for do's/dont's, and various ways to integrate their AD service with yours, including multiple scenarios such as running them as the masters of the forest, with read-only's on-site, and vice-versa.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#142

Post by solidasparagus »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #129
solidasparagus wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Like they do now? That hasn't worked out so hot for integration...

Not like they do now. If it was, you and I would know more about it because the infra would be required to be open source public domain

What? Why do you think info about Top Secret-ready infrastructure would be public domain?

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#143

Post by Ericson2314 »

solidasparagus wrote: post #142
Ericson2314 wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not like they do now. If it was, you and I would know more about it because the infra would be required to be open source public domain

What? Why do you think info about Top Secret-ready infrastructure would be public domain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t...

You would think there is a loophole for classified documents, but it is not mentioned there. They may be a perverse incentive to contract out so it can be secret-ish.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#144

Post by lstroud »

partiallypro wrote: post #2

My take on this whole thing, is the Amazon basically wrote the entire scope...so they just thought they were going to win because only they would meet it (this was a bit of a scandal just a few months back.) They bid high, and then they lost. Now they are mad that their lobbying wasn't a 100% success, so they are suing. It's all so very Amazon.

That said, from a citizens standpoint, if the government is going to only pick one, I can’t imagine it not being AWS. The difference in capability and capacity isn’t within an order of magnitude.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#145

Post by detaro »

Ari_Ugwu wrote: post #106
sabujp wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

seriously? inviting politicians and lobbyists to parties on your own dime?

Seems it's less a 'party' and more a networking event where I'm sure your competitors are not invited. Also less 'your own dime' and more a business expense that helps Bezos skirt even more taxes. I can't see it as an investment in the city. Maybe if he bought and renovated an apartment building. Held events in a top floor space. Transformed the lobby into a community business and tech center.

It's not investment "in DC" as in "into the betterment of the city", but as in "in the area of DC (to promote to the powers there)".

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#146

Post by solidasparagus »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #143
solidasparagus wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What? Why do you think info about Top Secret-ready infrastructure would be public domain?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t... You would think there is a loophole for classified documents, but it is not mentioned there. They may be a perverse incentive to contract out so it can be secret-ish.

That all sounds nice in theory but in practice you cannot get access to info about top-secret infrastructure. If you don't believe me, just try it.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#147

Post by chadcmulligan »

chadcmulligan wrote: post #78
GCSAQCMIYI wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think he bought it because he really likes journalism?

Here's an interview with him here about it [1] It seems he had a mix of reasons, he says. No doubt now that it's a functioning entity he has an added bonus. I remember at the time though most people thought he was throwing good money after bad. [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/stephaniedenning/2018/09/19/why...

I wasn't defending Bezos - just putting forward the situation at the time. I feel the idea that this is some brilliant forward plan of domination isn't correct, sure it was a possibility but the element of risk was one that everyone else walked away from. Respect to him for that, having said that, I disagree with a lot of his business practices, but that seems to be the current business environment - he's just working within the rules. The rules need to change.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#148

Post by Ericson2314 »

solidasparagus wrote: post #146
Ericson2314 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_status_of_works_by_t... You would think there is a loophole for classified documents, but it is not mentioned there. They may be a perverse incentive to contract out so it can be secret-ish.

That all sounds nice in theory but in practice you cannot get access to info about top-secret infrastructure. If you don't believe me, just try it.

How do you know it wasn't all contracted?

The best example I can think of is Ghidra from the NSA, which was formally classified. See https://github.com/NationalSecurityAgency/ghidra/blob/master..., parts of it are not the work of the government and not public domain.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#149

Post by solidasparagus »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #148
solidasparagus wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That all sounds nice in theory but in practice you cannot get access to info about top-secret infrastructure. If you don't believe me, just try it.

How do you know it wasn't all contracted? The best example I can think of is Ghidra from the NSA, which was formally classified. See https://github.com/NationalSecurityAgency/ghidra/blob/master... , parts of it are not the work of the government and not public domain.

I think what you're referring to is the copyright status of government work. Just because it is not copyrightable does not mean it is publicly available.

Re: It bid high and lost. Should Amazon be allowed a do-over on JEDI?

#150

Post by erpellan »

mrkramer wrote: post #90
keeganpoppen wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

oh, ^please^... not "every dominant giant company ever" has been found by U.S. federal court to have engaged in monopolistic / anti-competitive behavior. legality aside, that's to say nothing of all their no-walter-its-not-illegal-youre-just-an-asshole shenanigans contemporaneous with, and preceding, the lawsuit. playing dumb and conflating what Microsoft did with "every dominant giant company ever" only serves to wh…

What Microsoft did with Internet Explorer maybe looked dirty back in the day but ironically enough United States v. Microsoft Corp. suit started in 1998, the same year when Google was founded and quickly after conquered the internet with its search engine and internet browser. Innovations will always displace dominant products and the cycle goes on and on.

That is nowhere close to how ruthlessly they crushed competitors well before that. Microsoft are why you've probably never heard of Supercalc, Lotus/123 and WordPerfect. All superior products in the 80s and 90s, all crushed by MS strong-arm tactics of forcing PC manufacturers to sell machines with Windows and Office pre-installed.

They even destroyed companies they weren't even competing with, but thought they _might_ want to later! All MS needed to do was issue a vague press release that they were working on a competitor to [some successful software product] and all the customers would hold off on purchases until the original (successful) company went bankrupt. Many times MS never ever released anything, leaving everyone worse off.

So yeah. They seem nicer now, but they climbed over a lot of dead companies to get here.

Post reply on HN