Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Businesses IT

FedEx To Close Data Centers, Retire All Mainframes By 2024, Saving $400 Million (datacenterdynamics.com) 112

FedEx is to close its data centers and retire all of its remaining mainframes within the next two years. Speaking during the FedEx investor day, FedEx CIO Rob Carter said the company is aiming for a "zero data center, zero mainframe" environment based in the cloud, which will result in $400 million in savings annually. From a report: "We've been working across this decade to streamline and simplify our technology and systems," he said. "We've shifted to cloud...we've been eliminating monolithic applications one after the other after the other...we're moving to a zero data center, zero mainframe environment that's more flexible, secure, and cost-effective. Within the next two years we'll close the last few remaining data centers that we have, we'll eliminate the final 20 percent of the mainframe footprint, and we'll move the remaining applications to cloud-native structures that allow them to be flexibly deployed and used in the marketplace and business. While we're doing this, we'll achieve $400 million of annual savings."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

FedEx To Close Data Centers, Retire All Mainframes By 2024, Saving $400 Million

Comments Filter:
  • More secure? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by IWantMoreSpamPlease ( 571972 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @12:40PM (#62675236) Homepage Journal

    I've not heard the words "the cloud!" and "more secure" used together, unless it is in a joke.
    While this may save 400M, I wonder what the cost is to ramp up all the new stuff...

    • Re: More secure? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by NagrothAgain ( 4130865 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @12:44PM (#62675258)
      It's going to "save" them $400 million... in Capex. By spending the money as Opex.
      • lol no (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward
        If you're using mainframes to run your business you are not doing it to save money. z Series is crazy overpriced for what you get. Unless you really and truly need those features ... and a parcel service does not. Amazon is going to be cheaper than IBM any day of the week.
      • Re: More secure? (Score:5, Informative)

        by EvilSS ( 557649 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:27PM (#62675450)
        For large companies, it really can save money. I've done cloud migration projects for all sizes, but big companies, the ones big enough to have multiple datacenters in their own buildings, tend to benefit the most from a costs perspective. You eliminate not only the hardware and hardware maintenance contracts (servers, network gear, storage, UPSs, generators), a lot of software and software maintenance (hypervisors, monitoring tools, unneeded OS licenses/maintenance) but DC staff, physical security, HVAC, power, water/sewer, building maintenance, property taxes, insurance. Adds up pretty fast. And if you are re-architecting your line of business apps at the same time instead of doing a lift-and-shift of on-prem servers to cloud VMs, you can bring the cloud costs down considerably. Do it right and you can also spread across multiple vendors to prevent lock-in and allow for cost optimization as well.
        • Re: More secure? (Score:5, Insightful)

          by zlives ( 2009072 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:41PM (#62675504)

          i need to work for a larger company, because until now it always is more expensive overall.

        • Re: More secure? (Score:5, Interesting)

          by molarmass192 ( 608071 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @03:01PM (#62675720) Homepage Journal

          That's not universally true, in fact, I'd say for large companies it makes less sense unless they negotiate insane off sheet pricing. The "We'll save all this money on data centers, headcount and hardware!" always becomes "Why have our monthly IT expenditures become astronomical?". Fixed and one time budgets have less political friction than variable monthly bills. When hard times come and the CIO is looking for savings, that multi-million $ AWS / Azure monthly cheque is going to be in their crosshairs, when the sunken no-check-to-write data center depreciation deduction never would. If you're a small company, then AWS is undoubtedly cheaper than your own DC or even most co-hosting.

          • by EvilSS ( 557649 )
            Nothing in IT is universally true. However, from my experience moving quite a few companies up to cloud, bigger companies are more likely to find savings doing it Now if they just take what they have on prem and shove it into the cloud, then yes, that's not going to save them anything. But if you put some planning into it, and have the staff resources to rewrite your LoB apps, configure workload scaling automation, get off of running server workloads (especially on Windows Server OS) and over to containers
        • " Do it right and you can also spread across multiple vendors to prevent lock-in and allow for cost optimization as well."

          H A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A A!
      • But in the meantime, they'll try to defer their Opex as much as possible.

        By going into debt with their cloud providers, they'll be able to bump up the bonuses of their executives.

      • It's going to "save" them $400 million... in Capex. By spending the money as Opex.

        You can directly deduce OPEX from taxes. Doing that with CAPEX is a tad harder.

    • Re:More secure? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by rudy_wayne ( 414635 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @12:56PM (#62675326)

      FedEx CIO Rob Carter said the company is aiming for a "zero data center, zero mainframe" environment based in the cloud

      Apparently, Mr. Carter doesn't understand that "the cloud" **IS** a data center. It's just someone else's data center.

      • Wait until you'll find out about "serverless applications"... (And by that I don't mean desktop software.)
      • FedEx CIO Rob Carter said the company is aiming for a "zero data center, zero mainframe" environment based in the cloud

        Apparently, Mr. Carter doesn't understand that "the cloud" **IS** a data center. It's just someone else's data center.

        I'm sure Mr. Carter understands that perfectly well, and also understands that data centers benefit from economies of scale, and the big cloud providers have mind-boggling scale. Even with their profit margin, they can almost always significantly undercut the cost of self-service data center operations.

    • Cloud can indeed be more secure, especially for small firms, but I'd hope that wouldn't be true for a company like FedEx.

    • Re:More secure? (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:07PM (#62675370)
      Just 3 years ago, FedEx signed a 10 year "data center infrastructure agreement"

      https://www.cablinginstall.com... [cablinginstall.com]

      Also, they are already a customer of Oracle and Azure.

      Someone at FedEx is looking to get a promotion by conjuring up $400 Million in phony "savings"
    • Re:More secure? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by quantaman ( 517394 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:12PM (#62675392)

      I've not heard the words "the cloud!" and "more secure" used together, unless it is in a joke.
      While this may save 400M, I wonder what the cost is to ramp up all the new stuff...

      Well going from an old system to a new system probably is more secure.

      As for the security of the cloud overall, you're basically trading one class of vulnerabilities for another.

      It's true you're introducing the possibility of misconfiguration on your cloud settings, and of malfeasance or simple screwup by the cloud provider. But you're also getting the infrastructure managed by an IT staff much larger and better resourced than anything you can manage.

      I looked around for cloud security incidents and found some articles about folks misconfiguring their AWS buckets [makeuseof.com] and a list of breaches that have nothing to do with the cloud [arcserve.com] but not much else.

      I can see why some very paranoid folks like pipeline companies who might be the target of state actors would stay off the cloud, and maybe FedEx falls into that category, but I don't see any evidence of the cloud being less secure.

      • by spudnic ( 32107 )

        | Well going from an old system to a new system probably is more secure.

        When's the last time you heard of someone clicking on a link and infecting the company mainframe(s)? ;)

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      The cloud usually is more secure. Security experts are expensive, and so is a team of people to monitor for security incidents and keep every server up to date.

      Cloud providers have all that and more. While it doesn't mean the client can completely ignore security, it does usually mean it's better than if they did it themselves.

      How often do we hear about yet another data leak, yet another ransomware attack. Companies are terrible at doing their own security.

      • Re:More secure? (Score:5, Interesting)

        by eth1 ( 94901 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @02:27PM (#62675632)

        The cloud provider's security people aren't going to be helping you much. They only work on the provider's back end.

        You can still deploy vulnerable stuff into your public cloud and be just as screwed as if it was your own data center. You still need your own security people to handle your own stuff, and if you're in public cloud, their hands are generally tied in a lot of ways, and it's even more expensive if possible at all.

        We've been utterly unable to duplicate the level of security we have in our own data centers in AWS or Azure at any cost. It's getting better, but the capabilities just aren't there yet. The stuff that gets close, like VMC/NSX with Palo Alto service insertion is so expensive that no one can actually afford to do it at any reasonable scale.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I think you missed the point. Sure, your code can be vulnerable. But at least the cloud service provider takes care of the OS and the apps. When a critical flaw is discovered in MySQL or systemd, they will get it patched and deployed faster than most people running their own servers. In fact Google and Amazon and Microsoft engineers are often the ones who find the bugs and get them fixed before they are made public.

    • I do think aws would do a better job at security than fedex. IMHO
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by williamyf ( 227051 )

      I've not heard the words "the cloud!" and "more secure" used together, unless it is in a joke.
      While this may save 400M, I wonder what the cost is to ramp up all the new stuff...

      If this is done correctly, the extra security will not come from "the cloud", but rather from replacing code writen in the 70's (remember FedEx was founded in 1971) running in mainframes with code written in more modern languages, with more modern techniques, and taking into account things that did not exist in the 70's like the modern internet (remember that "the modern internet" started in 1 Jan 1984 with "the great switchover" to IPv4 + TCP)

    • Yes. "The cloud" can be more secure than on-premise systems for a number of reasons:
      - Money. Most in-house IT shops, even for big companies, don't spend enough on security. They might hire "a" security analyst, but the backlog of improvements is years long. AWS and Azure spend millions on security, because it is their very lifeblood. Without it, no one would be willing to host sensitive data in the cloud, and it certainly wouldn't meet regulatory requirements.
      - Lack of access. If you set up a headless data

      • I absolutely agree that the cloud can be more secure with a couple of caveats. First you have to setup guardrails at the organizational level and you have to use Infrastructure as Code (IaC).

        Guardrails are so important, even a simple one of RDP, ssh, remote access, etc. be denied by default. Then requiring IaC, in my case it's Terraform and GitLab. If a project needs remote access they have to put it into the .tf and request it be merged. Multiple groups have to review and approve the merge request (MR)

        • You make some excellent points. The OpEx vs. CapEx is more important than it might seem. If your company is so focused on the tax implications of CapEx vs. OpEx that they refuse to "do it right," they are asking for trouble no matter what method they use to stand up their infrastructure.

  • ...there are only other peoples computers.

    Placing all of your eggs in another persons basket doesn't seem like a good idea, but I could be wrong.

    • Putting all your eggs in your own basket versus playing a market of several competitors against each other for a very lucrative contract from your large business.

    • There are also multi-cloud and/or hybrid cloud deployments. It doesn't all have to be with one single cloud provider.
    • Indeed. And it is just another basket.

    • Perhaps the basket is handled by people who are more competent because they are specialized to handle eggs?

      Not saying that this has to be the case, but especially compared to smaller organizations, I find this rather likely to be the case.

      • Exactly this. How many companies have NO one whose job is specifically to manage infrastructure security improvements. It takes a fairly large organization to decide this is important enough to pay one person a full-time salary. Smaller organizations just assume that the IT support people are taking care of it.

    • And other people's computers are probably a better bet than your own.

      Speaking of eggs, there are people all over that decide to raise chickens to get their own fresh eggs. That's nice, but do these random people actually know about proper cleanliness and how to avoid e-coli contamination? Do they pasteurize their eggs for safety? Probably not. For those kinds of measures, we rely on specialists, people who run chicken farms that can be monitored and regulated.

      Personally, I'm less worried about eating a mass

      • by dwywit ( 1109409 )

        Well, I know that pasteurizing an egg cooks it. Perhaps you were thinking of a bleach rinse.

        I never sold my eggs, but between consuming them myself and handing over a few to neighbours, no-one got sick from them.

        Mass-produced eggs from large-scale barns are definitely in need of monitoring and regulation, but that's because large-scale production has issues that aren't applicable to three or four hens in the back yard..

    • You can be, and are wrong. If you build it, you own it and support it for the rest of its lifetime.

      If they build it, they own it and support it for the rest of it's lifetime, and as you're paying them to do exactly that, and there's a vibrant marketplace of providers, they need to do it right or everyone tells them to fist themselves and moves their shit somewhere else overnight. Moreover, there's no rule that says you can only use one cloud provider - make your backups in a cloud-agnostic way, and send y

  • So that's why (Score:5, Insightful)

    by RitchCraft ( 6454710 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @12:50PM (#62675290)
    "we've been eliminating monolithic applications one after the other after the other" - Well that's obvious. FedEx has become one of the worst shipping options to use over the past few years from my experience. Yea, put your faith in other people's systems (the so called "cloud"). In 5 to 10 years we'll be reading how FedEx is breaking ground for their new state-of-the-art data centers to give everyone better service.
    • Re:So that's why (Score:4, Interesting)

      by drinkypoo ( 153816 ) <drink@hyperlogos.org> on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @12:55PM (#62675318) Homepage Journal

      USPS has been consistently worse for me than fedex, but with that said, FedEx is clearly having IT problems lately. Their tracking page has been extremely hit and miss, as in, I have had to reload it a bunch of times before it will work. It's never a good look when the site just sometimes fails and sometimes doesn't with no explanation, it implies strongly that they don't know why it's failing.

      • Re:So that's why (Score:5, Insightful)

        by thoriumbr ( 1152281 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:19PM (#62675414) Homepage
        This happens because FedEx is abandoning the infra they currently have and moving to the next one. So the issues keep increasing with nobody to take care of them, because "they will be fixed later." No more hardware acquired, no more people trained, nothing. Until things are migrated, the current IT infra is a dead man walking.

        In my experience as a sysadmin, the move to cloud looks great at first and bites you later, when you already moved everything out and have no way back. Prices are good for starting but never goes down. Owning a mainframe is not cheap, but it's your hardware and you usually pay for the increase in performance, not the entire price of a new mainframe.
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by RitchCraft ( 6454710 )
        Yes, USPS is the absolute worst and has been since the Trump era meddling that happened. They have yet to recover from that debacle. I avoid USPS like the plaque and only use it for small packages that are extremely difficult to damage. UPS has been my go-to package service for the past two years but they are expensive and their drivers play football in the back lots with your packages before delivering so pack things EXTREMELY well. I use DHL for overseas packages.
      • Postal is bad but FedEx is far worse. Three weeks ago, I had a package dropped off at a FedEx black hole facility that sat for almost three full business days before moving on. When I checked online reviews after wondering why it hadn't moved, I saw some people lost packages there for nearly a month. When my package was finally at a nearby hub inside the state it took another three days to travel the last 64 miles to the closest hub. This was three days *AFTER* the status claimed it had already departed
    • FedEx: Your package will be delivered today. Current location: 500 miles away. FedEx: Your package is being delayed due to weather. FedEx: Your package was just delivered.
      • Thanks, this made me feel better. My package was out for delivery 300 miles away four days ago and now reads that it has no expected delivery date.

        USPS never does this, neither does UPS. Clearly Fedex needs to change their name to have more Us, Ss and Ps.
      • by Jerrry ( 43027 )

        FedEx has "lost" three packages being sent to me so far this year. I say "lost" because they actually delivered them to my neighbor. There are only two houses on my street, mine, at #20, and my neighbor, at #15. It takes a special kind of idiot to consistently confuse 20 and 15.

        • FedEx has "lost" three packages being sent to me so far this year. I say "lost" because they actually delivered them to my neighbor. There are only two houses on my street, mine, at #20, and my neighbor, at #15. It takes a special kind of idiot to consistently confuse 20 and 15.

          Is FedEx using Apple Maps? Because Apple Maps has done something similar to me a few times... ...although, it's been a while... Maps has improved since my last situation.

  • Time will tell if those 400 Mill show up in the balance sheet. Otherwise it will set back the concept of cloud and other companies betting on it.
    • by gtall ( 79522 )

      It depends upon how much the management controls the numbers. If they have their necks out there, they'll find a way to make the numbers hit their projections...by hook or by crook.

  • savings? are they cutting staff? and moving funds around?

    cloud is not free and local hubs may need more internet if there is no local servers.

    • cloud is not free and local hubs may need more internet if there is no local servers.

      There's already no local servers. Everything in a FedEx location is now a web page. There's a computer in kiosk mode with the site in a corner for you to use, but their computers are also going to the/a website, presumably to a different login.

    • cloud is not free

      The dude has a BS in computer science from the early 90s, but his advanced degree is an MBA. I doubt he's a particularly technical person (or at least hasn't been one for a couple decades).

      However even technical people fall into this trap. Our department Chair - in a STEM field - seems to think you can move your on-premises servers into the cloud and then everything (new deployments, maintenance, application development, etc.) somehow happens automatically with little-to-no expenditure at any level.

      • by ewhenn ( 647989 )
        He's in a STEM field? Use an analogy he can understand. Explain to him it's like the conservation of energy or something, lol. IE. Given a certain project IT work costs cannot be created or destroyed, they just take a different form. The work and cost is always there, it's just a matter of who is doing it and who is getting paid to do it.
  • by known_coward_69 ( 4151743 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @12:53PM (#62675312)

    the simplest things take 10 times as long to do as on-prem and in some cases advertised features simply refuse to work or break when there is a backend update

    keeps the IT people employed

    • You're comparing Azure to all the other, (redundant), options. That's as much apples to oranges as is conceivably possible.
    • by zlives ( 2009072 )

      you mean the ones that got fired to justify cloud ROI?

      its all good, the govt will bail them out.

    • Only if you don't know what you're doing.

      To do things right on-prem, it takes every bit as long. Most companies just don't bother to "do it right," they just go for the quickest, half-baked options.

      How many on-prem dev and test environments are truly walled-off from production? Most aren't, because nobody bothered to take the time to set up the network routing correctly. How many on-prem identities are properly managed and segregated? Most aren't. They just skip these things because they can, and they aren'

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:00PM (#62675350)

    Flexible, no question.
    Secure is a stretch. You're practically by definition not going to be *more* secure because you use a 3rd party service provider.
    Cost-effective, well, let's see if that really happens in two years. If you're big enough to need data centers IMO you shouldn't actually need cloud services.
    In dollar terms it was not cheaper for our small business to move to the cloud, even taking into account the time & money we spent managing our own hardware, but there are fewer headaches and there's less downtime.

  • by omfglearntoplay ( 1163771 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:07PM (#62675378)

    What they aren't saying is that they'll be spending $250 million every single year with some cloud provider, so at year three they've spent $750 million.

    And if some cloud provider thought they were really saving your millions, they'd jack up the price as soon as whatever legal contract runs out. What are you going to do then? Move everything to a competitor? No, you'll just pay up and lay off some more staff to pay someone else.

    I don't work with Fed-Ex, but I've never seen cloud actually come out cheaper in a 3-5 year run. Maybe their contracts with IBM or somebody was really bad, who knows how much of 400 million is real. They are probably "saving 400 million" year one because they don't have to replace 300 million in hardware and are killing $100 million in staff and datacenter costs. But if your long term costs are higher... does it make sense?

  • by SmaryJerry ( 2759091 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:16PM (#62675404)
    Moving all your servers to the cloud always seems cheaper until you realize your cloud provider can change their rates in a year, will charge you on processing power or bandwidth, and now you also need a third party for cloud support services. I'm not saying it doesn't make sense for the sake of simplicity, but I find it difficult to get a better experience at a cheaper rate than you could locally unless locally you already have a huge mess.
    • Meanwhile you can buy a server and use that potentially 20 years or more with a one-time cost - we have in the past - although lately windows has been doing their best to break everything from working on old hardware.
  • FedEx is claiming it has close to half a billion bucks IT overhead per year?!? Imagine had Fred Smith (ex-FedEx CEO, multiple vehicular death drivers, arrested forger) created his own public cloud offering instead of acquiring Kinkos. Integrate it with their delivery service and they could have been a real competitor to AWS. Could have been a foundation for all kinds of eCommerce platforms. Don't recall the last time I saw one of their photocopy stores...
  • by fuzzyfuzzyfungus ( 1223518 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:24PM (#62675444) Journal
    Obviously, in any transition, something has to be last; so it's possible that the last 20% of mainframe applications ended up as the last 20% for perfectly innocent reasons unrelated to difficulty; but it also wouldn't be a huge surprise if(through some mixture of people given choices actively picking soft targets and troubled projects either being allowed to stretch their timelines or being scrapped and restarted) the last 20% is the last 20% because it's the bit that is least tractable architecturally or in terms of technical debt or in terms of flexibility of 'the business' in the face of any change to those systems.

    It will be interesting to see if the plan to have progress continue at a linear pace and reach the victory condition on schedule pans out; or if this is one of those "90% done; 90% to go..." projects; where they've lulled themselves into a false sense of security on softer targets and are now heading for either some crippling regressions and a series of crash fixes(if they pull the plug too quickly) or a bunch of optimistic targets that will be politely forgotten about, with the legacy systems left up, for a few years of largely ineffectual flailing.
  • by Tablizer ( 95088 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:30PM (#62675466) Journal

    are like new-years resolutions, with similar outcomes.

  • by drwho ( 4190 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:34PM (#62675476) Homepage Journal

    I am gonna go short of Fedex. These things never go as smoothly as planned. I've worked at a large telecom corp that started moving to dah cloud and then stopped, because it was too disruptive. Sure, new stuff is done cloud-native but the old applications, many of which are business-critical, remain in their own data centers on traditional servers and will likely continue in this manner for many years.

  • zero... er... nope (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Tom ( 822 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @01:58PM (#62675562) Homepage Journal

    "Zero datacenter" ... "cloud"... the guy doesn't realize that "the cloud" is just a bunch of data centers?

    What he's moving to is zero ownership of his infrastructure. That can be smart or not, debatable - but it's not "zero datacenters", it's just "zero data centers that we own".

    • it's just "zero data centers that we own".

      Well, yeah. Is anyone implying anything else? It's not like IT needs vanish. This makes sense for FedEx. I'm guessing that their infrastructure is widely distributed, and consequently largely redundant.

      • by Tom ( 822 )

        Well, yeah. Is anyone implying anything else?

        Hell yes. He's talking exactly as if those data centers disappear. When, actually, I wouldn't be surprised if some large cloud provider buys them from FedEx and then rents them back to them as "the cloud".

  • I guess if you don't own it doesn't exist.
  • by King_TJ ( 85913 ) on Tuesday July 05, 2022 @02:59PM (#62675710) Journal

    The cloud is nothing more than paying to run your stuff on other people's computers instead of your own. Does it make financial sense? Who knows? It may... It very likely only does in the short-term.

    I agree with a consultant I worked with at a previous I.T. job, who said the single most advantageous thing to "cloudify" vs hosting on-prem is your email. With almost everyone doing Outlook these days, you may as well just buy your Outlook licenses as part of an O365 subscription and let Microsoft handle the mess that is back-end Exchange. Heck, even before MS offered such a thing, you were typically better off paying a third party to host Exchange for you because good email system specialists don't work cheap, and doing recovery on crashed Exchange servers has always been a painful, time-intensive process. Plus, you'll need almost the same amount of on-site bandwidth for email whether you host the thing on-prem or it's in the cloud, because all the messages have to come to each client individually if it's cloud hosted, or the same traffic all comes down to your local server(s) otherwise for local redistribution.

    So much of the other stuff really doesn't benefit you much to put in the cloud, since application performance can get severely throttled that way due to limits the hosts impose on you, or bandwidth limitations you run up against. That or the CPU power you need winds up costing you big money in the cloud because they keep billing based on utilization over time, vs buying what you need once and using it as much as you want to.

    • " paying to run your stuff on other people's computers instead of your own"

      When Amazon runs stuff on AWS for its own purposes, it doesn't suddenly stop being cloud services.

    • Cloud email has a higher Internet bandwidth requirement than on prem. I send a cat video to your org, cc 1000 addressees. On prem email, that cat video comes down the internet pipe only once and when each client downloads it, that's on your LAN. Cloud email, each client download hits the internet pipe.
      • That's true. But you're talking about one scenario; an email containing an attachment that gets delivered to a large number of mailboxes.

        Except for very large corporations, those "1000 addresses in the org" belong to people geographically scattered about. There's not a single site getting hit with the total bandwidth usage to send your cat video because a given office doesn't have the whole org residing there.

        Beyond that, you'd hope a junk filter stopped something like that from getting delivered out as spa

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I worked inside the belly of the FedEx IT beast for 25+ years and I left a few months ago for much better pay and a much less frustrating job, but to avoid calling down a witch hunt on my friends, I've created a throwaway acct.

    What saw for the last three years is an abject clusterfuck on an order of magnitude like I've never seen in my entire career there. Rather than invest in the systems that have run the company for years and continue to do so today, it's a constant drive to "but we have to rewrite ever

  • Stating, or implying, that a Cloud provider is more secure than a modern mainframe environment is laughable. With a a stack based architecture to provide attack vectors, thus, making the only way to get system privileges is by being placed in an authorized library by an actual person, on the inside of the enterprise. Protected, encrypted memory in hard partitions run by a hardware hypervisor eliminates 99% of the attack vectors seen on PC based hardware.

    Clearly, there is another motive at work with this ann

  • Is this an actual saving or are they just moving the costs somewhere else in the balance sheet to justify some big bonuses?
  • For a Fortune 100 Company to not control its own data, real time or archived, is VERY dangerous. Like many of y'all, I don't trust the cloud for much. For FedEx to do so, seems asinine. The only secure computer to online hacking is a computer not connected to the network.
  • ... if the projected savings actually materialize.
    Porting old mainframe programs to new systems is nontrivial and despite what the cloud salespeople say, the cloud is not a magic bullet

  • Itâ(TM)s not our mainframe anymore, but âoethe cloud.â
  • ...like an oddly excessive amount of data center cost?

    I mean, I'd understand huge costs for salaries, trucks, planes, fuel but $400M on data costs?

    It seems they ship around 6B packages a year which equates into about $0.07/package in data center costs which seems pretty high to me?

  • Maybe they don't feel they can run their data center securely for less than it costs to rent server space/security/etc. So they're running their software on someone else's computer (the 'cloud') and letting someone else manage it all. Will probably cost them more per year, but also show some nice first quarter savings/profit, and might be better for them in the long run. It looks like they have recognized a weakness and responded to it.

    • I can tell you from experience, you are not actually outsourcing your security, you are handcuffing it. The "cloud" does not make your applications more secure, or your deployment more secure, it just adds a hoop to jump through for your security people as they no longer have full control of the systems and now need to worry about attack vectors for shared infrastructure (i.e. unless you are paying for exclusive hardware rights where-in you are the only entity running on the hardware, you now need to worry
  • I look forward to the savings being passed on to the consumer in the form of cheaper shipping costs. That's how these things work, right?
  • It's because the Tesla humanoid robot is gonna render FedEx obsolete, right? There will be a fleet of autonomous robotaxi cubertrucks and semis driven by humanoid robots. Wait, what?
  • Consolidation to benefit Amazon, IBM, and MS. Meanwhile, Amazon is running its own delivery service. Hasta la vista, Fedex, it was nice knowin' ya.

  • Just to spend 800million in equivalent managed hosting or "cloud" services? Lol

There's no sense in being precise when you don't even know what you're talking about. -- John von Neumann

Working...