Thread regarding DXC Technology layoffs

@tz FDS got su-ked into the bottomless pit that is DXC and then promptly went about destroying the uniqueness that they brought in the way contracts were handled

@mj+1jv44me3y based off of that why doesn't DXC take BAE of over the coals on hosting? Also what's the deal with FDS? I thought it was pulled back into DXC? Did that not happen since the contract was extended?

It's still early days, I heard both contracts were extended into end of next year because Perseus is so massive in scope.

CapG gets Service Desk and SIAM
Computacenter gets Modern Workplace or End User Services

Supposedly Vodafone bid but were laughed out the door as their services are notoriously poor and they supposedly refused to commit UK staff to it which would be a big no no from a security perspective

DXC are keeping hosting because they have it hostage. BAE actually have a vested interest in DXC not collapsing because it means all of their servers they lease will be in limbo... and other providers or buyers etc might just rail them like Broadcom did with VMware

And BAE know it is cheaper to have a supplier purchase and lease the hardware to them then pay out of pocket and manage the DCs etc

To quote a comment of mine from last year
@3ikp+1t8mkKM5
"The only reason DXC are keeping hosting is £££ and risk

For most of BAE services are hosted out of the 2 DXC datacentere in Kent those being Sevenoaks ODC and Maidstone MDS. The components of BAE that arent supported by DXC are hosted out of datacenters on BAE sites. Barrow, Broad Oak, Scotstoun etc which would be easier to TUPE the staff supporting those as they have for years

Ergo its cheaper since DXC bent over and spread to keep BAE under the 30 30 contract "30% more for 30% less" and migrating services out of Maidstone and Sevenoaks would be a nightmare. DXC also bear the cost of purchasing the hardware and simply lease it to BAE.

This isnt a great move for DXC nor is it a horrible move for the MSPs missing out on the hosting bid. BAE is notorious across the board both nautical and airborne for its legacy IT and reluctance to pay or allow for sufficient maintenance window to upgrade.

BAE exec decision is typically around cost usually. This I hear from both DXC and BAE architects

Airlnk on BAE is a big example with the DXC project handover to run being terrigle. Servers which werent fit for purpose never passed ORR and no out of hours support because the old hosting lead refused to let his team be burdened with the utter cr@p that was that service so project staff had to be asked to support"

Basically its going to be a frankencontract with different suppliers in key areas... if they all work on the same environment all well and good but otherwise it will be a nightmare managing different supplkerss,

Why would Cap or ACN buy DXC… lol.
Why would the NY Yankees buy a T-Ball team in Ohio?

Am surprised cap or Accenture haven’t bought DXC for their clients

no need - just look at Accenture's revenue increases over the past 7 years. They are picking up ex-DXC clients one-by-one every quarter
far more effective than having to spend $4-5B and then inheriting a large mess all at once and having to WFR 130K staff

Nobody would buy dxc or try anything else similarly stupid because dxc is in the history books for what happens when you try a mo--nic merger like that.

Nobody wants to hole their business below the waterline like that.

Am suprised cap or Accenture haven’t bought DXC for their clients then just sack the DXC systems and sh-t internal process off, profit.

We're waiting on our AI-infused Platform-X to make a decision.

I have no idea why BAE keep DXC. Just shift the staff, and instruct CapGem to pay people properly. You know who the goods ones are that deserve it. You also know who are the id--ts that DXC just won't let go despite endless complaints. This is your opportunity to rid yourself off the dross holding BAE back.

I thought Stan was running that, so you can imagine how it’s gonna go

Nothing really at this time.