• “Cloud First”: To move federal agencies to the cloud, the government created a program known as FedRAMP, whose job was to ensure the security of new technology.
  • Security Breakdown: ProPublica found that FedRAMP authorized a Microsoft product called GCC High to handle sensitive government data, despite years of concerns about its security.
  • Potential Conflict of Interest: The government relies, in part, on third-party firms to vet cloud technology, but those firms are hired and paid by the company being assessed.
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 3 points 5 months ago* (1 child)

I see the approach of Outposts, just don’t know if I agree with it. Part of the point is it lets you have a dedicated, isolated, on-premise platform without the need to train existing engineers/admins on a secondary technology like Nutanix, ProxMox, etc.

So your calculus should include the cost to rent vs dedicated head count (and let me tell you, companies fucking hate headcount).

Now all that being said, I have yet to see a situation where it really is more cost effective, especially due to the things you mentioned.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -2 points 5 months ago (2 children)

    on-premise

    You mean "private cloud", right? No one who can afford outpost will be putting this in their server closet. It'll go in the datacenter.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 5 months ago

    “Private cloud” has always been a synonym for “on-premise”. I’ve managed Datacenter infrastructure for decades and always referred to it to on-premise before private cloud even became a term. It basically is referring to Datacenter space you own or rent vs another company’s servers and DCs.

    Hell, I’ve worked in companies where they had Datacenter space in the same building as their office (and not small either, one was 32 racks, another was almost 200). So that very much was “on-premise”

  • source
  • parent