Those of us old enough to remember BBS servers or even rainbow banners often go down the nostalgia hole about how the internet was better “back in the day” than it is now as a handful o…
Except the tech companies are among the politicians’ biggest “donors”.
Public cloud computing companies that want to host government IT workloads still have to be Fedramp compliant. Doesn’t matter how much their donors pay, if they aren’t Fedramp compliant they can’t bid for the work.
I dunno what “Fedramp compliant” means? Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.
Its the whole point of this point in this thread. A set of standards the company has to meet to be able to do government work.
Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.
Google is, so is Microsoft as is Amazon which is also the point of this post. They had to meet the security and interoperability standards to get the government work. No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.
Weird that the article never even mentions it’s own subject… Or that its about a problem you claim doesn’t exist…
I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.
“Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You’re welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.
No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.
Oh, honey…
Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?
I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article
I don’t know how to help you if can’t see that’s nowhere to be found.
It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.
That word is not there either.
The word it does have is “could”, meaning does not currently.
it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified
Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.
Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.
I’m talking about Fedramp as an example of a government compliance regime that “through government procurement laws, governments” DOES "require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m confused how you’re spending so much effort in a conversation and you’re not able to connect basic concepts.
Article premise: “Wouldn’t it be great if X exists?”
Me: “X does exist for a specific area, its called Fedramp.”
Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?
Except the tech companies are among the politicians’ biggest “donors”.
Public cloud computing companies that want to host government IT workloads still have to be Fedramp compliant. Doesn’t matter how much their donors pay, if they aren’t Fedramp compliant they can’t bid for the work.
I dunno what “Fedramp compliant” means? Presumably Apple and Google aren’t bidding for these contracts, which are the ones with the power to change the industry.
Its the whole point of this point in this thread. A set of standards the company has to meet to be able to do government work.
Google is, so is Microsoft as is Amazon which is also the point of this post. They had to meet the security and interoperability standards to get the government work. No amount of donor money allows a company to bypass Fedramp compliance for this work.
Weird that the article never even mentions it’s own subject…
Or that its about a problem you claim doesn’t exist…
Oh, honey…
I don’t know how to help you if you’re not able to see the parent post which is quote in the article. It has this important line which we’re discussing in this thread.
“Through government procurement laws, governments could require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m not going to copy/paste the entire line of posts where the conversation evolves. You’re welcome to read those to catch up to the conversation.
Cool, then it should be easy for you to cite a company that got Fedramp work without being Fedramp certified. Should I wait for you to post your evidence or will you be a bit?
I don’t know how to help you if can’t see that’s nowhere to be found.
That word is not there either.
The word it does have is “could”, meaning does not currently.
Once again, no one is talking about " fedramp" but the entire article goes into detail about the subject of government requirements for contractors that don’t exist. Maybe give it a look.
I’m talking about Fedramp as an example of a government compliance regime that “through government procurement laws, governments” DOES "require any company providing a product or service to the government to not interfere with interoperability.”
I’m confused how you’re spending so much effort in a conversation and you’re not able to connect basic concepts.
Article premise: “Wouldn’t it be great if X exists?”
Me: “X does exist for a specific area, its called Fedramp.”
Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?
What you’re talking about, and what myself and the author are talking about, are clearly not the same thing.
Where is the difficulty you are encountering in understanding conversational flow?