Pentagon Weighs Ending JEDI Cloud Project Amid Amazon Court Fight (wsj.com) 86
Pentagon officials are considering pulling the plug on the star-crossed JEDI cloud-computing project, which has been mired in litigation from Amazon and faces continuing criticism from lawmakers. From a report: The Joint Enterprise Defense Infrastructure contract was awarded to Microsoft in 2019 over Amazon, which has contested the award in court ever since. A federal judge last month refused the Pentagon's motion to dismiss much of Amazon's case. A few days later, Deputy Defense Secretary Kathleen Hicks said the department would review the project. "We're going to have to assess where we are with regard to the ongoing litigation around JEDI and determine what the best path forward is for the department," Ms. Hicks said at an April 30 security conference organized by the nonprofit Aspen Institute. Her comments followed a Pentagon report to Congress, released before the latest court ruling, that said another Amazon win in court could significantly draw out the timeline for the program's implementation. "The prospect of such a lengthy litigation process might bring the future of the JEDI Cloud procurement into question," the Jan. 28 report said. Ms. Hicks and other Pentagon officials say there is a pressing need to implement a cloud program that serves most of its branches and departments. The JEDI contract, valued at up to $10 billion over 10 years, aims to allow the Pentagon to consolidate its current patchwork of data systems, give defense personnel better access to real-time information and put the Defense Department on a stronger footing to develop artificial-intelligence capabilities that are seen as vital in the future.
The whole thing was silly anyway. (Score:3)
Having their own fab and their entirely independent in-house server manufacturing would be financable with the small change left over in after emptying truckbeds full of big money they spend on war machines that the generals themselves don't even want.
It could he so custom that the Chinese couldn't even inject bugs if they wanted to.
Re: The whole thing was silly anyway. (Score:2)
Correction: Of course they want to. ;)
Re: (Score:1, Insightful)
Having their own fab and their entirely independent in-house server manufacturing would be financable with the small change left over in after emptying truckbeds full of big money they spend on war machines that the generals themselves don't even want.
It could he so custom that the Chinese couldn't even inject bugs if they wanted to.
Would it? Govt often screws up everything. I believe a outside contractor that knows what they’re doing would be better and cheaper than govt trying to hire and manage people to setup cloud computing big enough to handle the entire military.
Re:The whole thing was silly anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
"Govt often screws up everything." You are full of shit. How about you renounce any future SS and Medicare because the gov. will "screw it up". Don't get on airplanes because the FAA is screwing up the safety checks, the airlines have an acceptable risk for death. Or don't bother funding the National Transportation and Safety Board, the car companies won't mind a few more accidents just as long as you keep buying cars.
Let's get rid of the FDT because Harry's Drug and Fish Bait Company wouldn't think to mix the fish feed with the drug supply. And we can get rid of the banking oversight because the banks will always protect your money. While we're at it, let's get rid of the Federal court system, you won't be needn't them because Clem down the road didn't like your Ma and shot her. And the NiH, sheesh who needs cancer and vaccine research.
Do you even live in the real world or are you so Ayn Rand addled that you cannot think any more?
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
So you're saying you're a screwup. Got it.
Re: (Score:2)
A screw can be part of a faulty machine without itself being faulty.
Your "logic", however, tells us that you are just as flawed as your argument.
Re:The whole thing was silly anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
I work in the govt. Trust me when I say the govt often screws up everything. SS and Medicare are two good examples you gave.
These and my other programs are screwed up because bribery is legal if you call it lobbying.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The whole thing was silly anyway. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Have you ever worked in the private sector? They screw up just as bad as government all the time. The only difference is that they're not even pretending to work for the common good.
Re: (Score:2)
I work in the corporate world. Trust me when I say that for-profit companies are run by a bunch of halfwits most of the time. When success is measured by how large your portfolio is then there's no reason to actually have a quality product or service.
Re: (Score:2)
Problem is, you can completely ignore the Ayn Rand stuff and still plainly see that government DOES screw up a whole lot of things! Even when they initially get something working well, it's often something they manage to screw up later -- or it's something achieved only at a far higher total cost than a private sector company would have spent to do it.
I cite as example #1, the current state of our Post Office! I shipped a package from Illinois to Florida, via 1st. class mail, last month. It took it about
Re: (Score:2)
Keep in mind, the USPS has been monkey wrenched by people who wanted to "prove" that government screws up by making it screw up.
re: USPS (Score:2)
"Keep in mind, the USPS has been monkey wrenched by people who wanted to "prove" that government screws up by making it screw up."
Yeah, that's been the excuse for everything lately ... But I fail to see how that has any bearing on finding bags of undelivered mail tossed in dumpsters, or the postal inspector taking a "who cares?" attitude about it until the mass media starts making them look bad for it? The bigger problem I see is a change in hiring practices for the post office. You see mail carriers, late
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Thinking the government has trouble doing things as successfully and efficiently as the private sector does not require an Ayn Rand mindset. I'm a liberal who wants to see the government take on more responsibilities, but I also fear the way our federal and state governments are set up hinder their ability to delivery many services well. It doesn't help when half the government officials think government is the problem and actively set out to hamper its ability to work effectively (so they can turn around a
Re: (Score:2)
I seriously doubt the government can screw up as hard as Microsoft's cloud. A bunch of wannabes thinking that because they are Microsoft that they can do anything involving a keyboard. They can't even make a halfway decent operating system or word processor, what makes anything think they're organized enough to have cloud services?
Re: (Score:2)
If fairness you sound like someone that hasn't used both AWS and Azure. The weird part is that for once, Azure is the polished product. Much like what Apple does for the iPhone Microsoft has done for cloud services. It is clean, it is quite limited if you go outside the norm, but the vast majority of stuff is very accessible.
Does that mean AWS isn't a strong product? Of course not, but in terms of scale and skillsets, its far easier to find support staff for Azure than it is for AWS. Price wise they are pr
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
The most important principle here is that government data should be stored on government servers in government datacenters staffed entirely by government employees.
Outsourcing or attempting to outsource government data should result in criminal charges up to and including treason.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, no Reagan Gold Star for you, he's the one who started the R's on out-sourcing essential government functions to well-connected private enterprises. The private sector is "here to help", help screw government out of tax dollars.
Re: (Score:2)
Having their own fab and their entirely independent in-house server manufacturing would be financable with the small change left over in after emptying truckbeds full of big money they spend on war machines that the generals themselves don't even want.
Except it would take 30 years to finish and require hiring a bunch of contractors to build, maintain and operate. In addition, the pressure would be on to use the cheapest solution possible, which means building it on OSS (not a bad idea) but not being able to hire the needed expertise due to limits on what they can pay. Since contractors would have to be used, that would have to go out to bid anyway.
As for truckloads of money spent on stuff the Pentagon doesn't want, Congress wants them because, well, job
Re:The whole thing was silly anyway. (Score:4, Insightful)
Not even close. First off, they'd be getting third tier employees because the top tier ones already work for Amazon, TSMC, Intel, Microsoft, Apple, etc. and supervise the second tier ones. Then the third tier guys would quit after a couple months/years because they can't pay enough and their leadership is incompetent. They'd end up with the ones that even the contractors in India don't want, and if you think any of those guys can be trusted with the necessary security clearances then I have a bridge with a great view of Brooklyn you might be interested in buying.
Next, the Pentagram has no manufacturing experience of its own besides nukes (and I think some ammunition plants still), and their procurement process is designed to pretty much guarantee to deliver mediocre product for the highest price with the latest delivery and essentially no warrantee.
Building out a data center is a multiple year process, even if you already own the land and the infrastructure is in place. It's quite literally faster to build a 40 story office building than to put together a data center, I know because I'm constantly involved in that process. It's a rather specialized set of talents that need to be brought in from program initiation including power distribution, air flow, physical network topography, and cable routing. Just the security aspect includes physical, network, program, OS, firmware, and hardware levels, Azure and AWS have larger security teams than the entire IT department of most Fortune 50 corporations. The competent ones charge top dollar for their services, the Pentagon isn't going to be paying some techie more than a 4-star general.
The US military doesn't have the quality of high speed links that AWS, Azure or even Google do, and they're not going to acquire them in their typical low bid process.
Congress will insist on placing sites in utterly inappropriate locations in order to direct construction contracts to their family and benefactors.
I'll stop there. TLDR; You can't get there from here.
Chinese must be laughing (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Chinese must be laughing (Score:5, Informative)
I have no dog in this fight, I really don't. And yes it could be that Microsoft actually had the superior offering, but the well has been poisoned by the Trump clown show.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Chinese must be laughing (Score:2)
Microsoft promised what they knew they could not deliver, for a price they knew would be greatly exceeded, to people who don't know enough to realize they were being sold false promises. Same old story.
Re: Chinese must be laughing (Score:2)
[Citation needed]
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There is a slight difference between other projects running over budget and a particular bidder "promised what they knew they could not deliver".
Good to know you are in the mind reading business.
Re: (Score:2)
> There is a slight difference between other projects running over budget and a particular bidder "promised what they knew they could not deliver".
There is no difference when you don't have enough information to make an informed estimate, because there is no way to pre-vet the implementation requirements. It's all smoke and mirrors historically. Making a hand-wavy "mind reader" comment belies your own ignorance.
Re: (Score:3)
I do physical security (key cards, cameras, alarms, that stuff), and have worked on both AWS and Azure sites. (Currently work for Amazon Corporate Security.) Alarms at the MS DCs come into the same GSOC that monitors the kitchen pantry at an office building, I saw DVRs at a supposed high security site sit offline for over six months before a repair order was issued. Alarms at the Amazon data centers come into the AWS SOC, devoted exclusively to the DCs, and the staff is the second-best (after the Gates h
Re: (Score:2)
Microsoft promised what they knew they could not deliver, for a price they knew would be greatly exceeded, to people who don't know enough to realize they were being sold false promises. Same old story.
That is exactly how many DOD contracts go down. Win contract, get a foot in the door, find exceptions in requirements and/or incomplete specification, proceed to rob the government with change orders and follow on sole-source. I have seen it first hand - LockMart has this down to an art form.
Re:Chinese must be laughing (Score:4, Insightful)
We all have a dog in that fight. Microsoft and security are two words that never meet amicably.
Re: (Score:2)
No kidding. We're toast, aren't we.
Microsoft (Score:4, Interesting)
Microsoft seems to be adept at scamming the pentagon, do they have something over officials there? Do they have the best hookers or something? Especially the ridiculous 5 year deal for $22 billion to Microsoft for HoloLens VR headsets. Literally the worst headsets on the market.
Re: (Score:2)
When you're shilling, you should at least take care to find out what it is you're going to troll the opposition on.
US military isn't buying VR headsets. They're buying intergrated AR systems. Those two have as much in common as a cheap sedan has in common with a main battle tank.
Re: Microsoft (Score:2)
I believe hololens only comes in AR flavor.
Re: (Score:2)
It does. That's one of the main reasons why Microsoft was picked for the future AR to on into warfighter kit.
Re: (Score:1)
> Do they have the best hookers or something?
No they just have the best PaaS and Serverless offering which is really what this project needed.
I mean sure, if you need IaaS then AWS is superior, but this is greenfield, not lift and shift of legacy services hence why Azure was the obvious fit.
No conspiracy theory, no scamming, no trickery, just the best tool for the job.
I know that might be hard to grasp if you're some kind of FOSS zealot.
Finally (Score:2)
Finally, a good outcome when lawyers get involved, but I am sure there are a lot of upset lawyers.
Having Defence systems on the Cloud is as stupid as it gets. lets hope the pentagon drops this Idea
Re: Finally (Score:2)
Re: Finally (Score:4, Informative)
Private clouds are a thing, as much as private servers are a thing. Don't let the word cloud fool you into thinking one can't be segregated from the world at large. Cloud in this case would be like owning one's own Amazon data center tied to a private network. In all other aspects like a cloud complete with the flexibility in resource management that brings.
Re: Finally (Score:2)
He means that there is an airgap between the government servers and the non-government servers that are on the Internet. It only sounds silly if you interpret the airgap to mean that there is no networking at all, which is not usually what it means. The network being discussed is intended to be airgapped from other networks.
Now, will it be? Probably not. So many COTS programs are written assuming that they can get to the Internet that they will probably just plug that sucker right in immediately.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, the 'air gap' is that they're in entirely separate data centers. That's why AWS has the CIA and IRS contracts, even they can't get in from the outside.
Re: (Score:2)
I actually don't know if AWS has sections that are separate from the actual internet. Certainly not all of govcloud is, or even most. But perhaps they have those as well.
Re: (Score:2)
I do know that the data and processing are in their own GovCloud buildings. No idea about the networking side of things, I just do physical security.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
These are sovereign airgapped clouds. Not the public azure cloud.
My guess is some sort of SIPRNEt cloud setup; not the regular cloud services that have met basic security requirements such as HIPA or for storing personally identifiable information.
Rational Thought Might Prevail (Score:2)
I could never understand the rationale behind the JEDI procurement process anyway. Any initiative as large as this was bound to be a multi-cloud endeavor, likely with reliance on on-site servers in addition to the public cloud. That would apply to most projects even 1% of the size of the JEDI program.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm not surprised (Score:4, Informative)
The surprising thing, really, is that DoD didn't go with a multi-cloud solution to begin with. Lots of contract vehicles already available for that sort of thing.
On the high side it's mostly AWS. But that's because MS didn't realize until about 4 years ago that there was a lot of money there and that Amazon was walking away with it. I was briefly with a team at MS that was trying to port Azure to the high side and, boy howdy, that system was not designed for that set of use cases. Azure is a really well designed system, but DoD and the IC have lots of special requirements.
Re: I'm not surprised (Score:2)
Azure never seemed well designed to me, and it's certainly not well implemented. In any multinational that depends on it you get 5 to 20 people who just deal with the endless failures, disk corruption, networking hiccups, API issues, unexplained slowdowns, and so on.
Most of what Azure offer is just a matter of rushing out a bad copy of whatever AWS has for checkbox ticking.
I worked on Azure Storage (Score:4, Informative)
The source code is very well written and thoroughly documented, especially the clever and tricky parts. Solid exception handling throughout. Mostly C#, but with the high-performance parts in C libraries.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please shed some light on why every issue I encounter with Microsoft products, cloud included, always prints the vaguest error message imaginable? It provides no information about the nature of the error, no clue as to how the issue can be resolved, and it always says to contact Microsoft support. While the support team can be useful, many times there is no diagnosis of the issue - it's just a script of steps that usually devolves to the point of burning ever
Re: (Score:2)
You mean Microsoft outsourced that code?
I used Azure at multinational scale. It's endless bizarre failures. The errors reported to actual cloud users are not meaningful most of the time. Same with all Microsoft products, frequent and meaningless general error codes all over the place.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the surprising thing is that anyone thinks DoD systems should be cloud based, it's a huge national security risk.
Re:I'm not surprised (Score:5, Informative)
Ridiculous. You apparently don't understand anything about how cloud systems or military systems are actually implemented.
The contract is for a private cloud system. The Pentagon is not going to expose its operations to individual websites. All these theoretical attacks by snooping on cloud nodes are irrelevant; the whole computing structure would be physically encapsulated. Its more about moving operations to a cloud based setup for scaling purposes, internal operations management, and what future computing infrastructures are going to look like.
Re: (Score:2)
I think you mean public cloud-based, which no one is suggesting. In terms of applying cloud-based methodologies to a private network, what exactly do you see as the problem? You're effectively arguing that a management and orchestration methodology on a private network is a national security risk. By extension, you're also implying that a half-baked in-house solution will somehow be better, which seems like a rather optimistic point of view to take when it comes to government R&D.
Re: (Score:3)
False and illogical, I'm saying a cloud managed by third party such as amazon or Microsoft is security threat. Pentagon can have in-house best of breed solutions on big iron, the power and throughput which can make thousands of cloud VM look puny in comparison. There are long time defense dept authorized solution providers that can do this. Shitty wintel cloud is NOT the answer, they can use real computers that scale far beyond that.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, I see, you're just someone with no experience working with government or defense contractors. Your faith in government procurement is touching.
Re: (Score:3)
The Pentagon has mainframes so old that they're buying parts for them on eBay (literally). That have entire data lakes that are on tape backup systems a decade out of warrantee. They have almost no ability to support the IoT devices that are being rolled out, and can't even adequately support the backend systems for the apps for their ruggedized tablets.
Re: (Score:2)
What runs on dozens of old mainframes can run on one shiny new mainframe with redundant ones at different location(s) and also run the latest best softwares and services that exist.. That same mainframe can also host multiple (as in hundreds) of Linux servers. Not seeing how what you say means "need to spend money on cloud"
Re: (Score:2)
Mainframe != big commodity server
Mainframe OS > Linux
AWS can emulate a Tandem or IBM or HP mainframe (the military has all of those), making migration far less painful than trying to move those workloads all to one machine. Don't know if Azure can, but I would assume they can add that ability if it doesn't exist. Good luck getting an IBM to support programs compiled to run on a Tandem, the rewrite headaches alone would make moving that load to the cloud a no-brainer.
Much of the military's current compu
Re: (Score:2)
You mean AWS can emulate a tiny bottlenecked mainframe in slow motion with a 25 year old procecessor with puny storage and constipated access to peripherals. There is no comparison.
I don't know what you mean by "less painful than trying to move those workloads to one machine" A mainframe can act as thousands of scalable machines if need be.
As for Tandem, the big contract that brought those in was because of ADA, that code can definitely be ported anywhere by design of the language, a horrible amount of tr
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
My coworker's previous gig was network support for Azure. When I told him about the JEDI award his first words was, "They're going to regret that." I asked if he meant Microsoft or the Pentagon, he replied, "Both."
I hope disney sues too (Score:1)
I hope Disney sues too over the name.
The mistake (Score:2)
The US Government made the mistake of thinking that it was in charge of the country, instead of Amazon.
Amazon will set them straight.
And a single target for Ransomware criminals (Score:1)
Consequences of a multi-year delay? (Score:2)
DoD put a lot onto that contract. If it's pulled, it'll be probably 2 years at the minimum before a new solicitation could be produced, reviewed, passed through the approval process (with all the massive scrutiny it will get), competed, and then awarded, before a replacement is actually available for DoD users.
Part of the decision-making process -should be- "Is the delay for a new contract worth the hassles and risks of not continuing with the current contract?" Now there are significant legal issues here
Re: (Score:2)
> For those of you who argue "government should be more like business," consider that most businesses would just pick a winner and tell the loser to "pound sand".
No fan of Microsoft but, yes, tell Amazon to pound sand.
The only question is "is this project critical to national defense?".
If it is, Amazon's suit is an existential threat.
If it isn't then the DoD should cancel the project and return the money to the taxpayer.
Re: (Score:2)
The other question "Is Azure capable of delivering on this contract?" That answer is "No". AWS is already doing almost all of it, with security high enough to keep the CIA and IRS happy.
Re: (Score:2)
Hmmm. I presume you've read the full solicitation including the evaluation criteria and then both proposals, so you actually have a basis to make that assessment of how each proposal scores against the evaluation criteria?
Oh, and since when is an ellipsis "ascii art" and prohibited on SlashDot?
Contract vehicle was wrong (Score:2)
It seems to me... (Score:2)
That a monopoly would use litigation to secure a gov't contract, rather than beating their competition (Microsoft, SpaceX) with the merit of their offerings. Perhaps the US Senate or Congress should direct the DOJ towards an antitrust suit against Amazon.
Why use cloud for DoD in the first place? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll just direct you to the answer that I gave a different poster above.
https://news.slashdot.org/comm... [slashdot.org]
Too many lawsuits (Score:2)
They should do a second program with Amazon (Score:3)
and call it the SITH program.
This way, it would keep the whole thing balanced... ;-)