Canonical Announces "Ubuntu Pro" For AWS

[phoronix]

Phoronix: Canonical Announces "Ubuntu Pro" For AWS

Looking to further capitalize upon the popularity of Ubuntu in the cloud, Canonical today announced Ubuntu Pro premium images for Amazon's EC2 cloud...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Canonical-Ubuntu-Pro

[royce]

> Ubuntu Pro on AWS costs approximately $0.229/hr.

This is not the case. The cost will depend on the type of EC2 instance it's deployed into, like everything else in AWS. Not sure where you got that number from, Michael?

[CommunityMember]

Not sure where you got that number from, Michael?

I believe it is on one of the "typical pricing" pages (and anyone who knows AWS pricing knows there is nothing typical about the pricing, as it is always "it depends").

The number that matters is that Ubuntu-Pro is $0.037/hr for the Canonical support in addition to the AWS pricing for your instance.

[F.Ultra]

I believe it is on one of the "typical pricing" pages (and anyone who knows AWS pricing knows there is nothing typical about the pricing, as it is always "it depends").

The number that matters is that Ubuntu-Pro is $0.037/hr for the Canonical support in addition to the AWS pricing for your instance.

Also after a quick glance at the AWS pricelist the cost of Ubuntu-Pro is not a flat addition but it varies between instance types.

[MrEcho]

With all the tools AWS is adding to manage instances, some of the features dont really sound all that impressive.
Live kernel patching does sound cool, but any system built on the 'cloud', you have to build it to where any part of it can go poof any second.
So rebooting a box after a kernel update shouldn't really be an issue now days.

But theres still software out there that isnt built for the 'cloud' and needs that single server setup, and to run 24/7.

[zxy_thf]

With all the tools AWS is adding to manage instances, some of the features dont really sound all that impressive.
Live kernel patching does sound cool, but any system built on the 'cloud', you have to build it to where any part of it can go poof any second.
So rebooting a box after a kernel update shouldn't really be an issue now days.

But theres still software out there that isnt built for the 'cloud' and needs that single server setup, and to run 24/7.

Agreed. The FIPS compliant also looks weird. (who cares FIPS compliant if you're not part of the Gov. or its contractors?)
It seems they just crammed bunch of Enterprise features to a cloud environment.

[swagg_boi]

who cares FIPS compliant if you're not part of the Gov. or its contractors?
It seems they just crammed bunch of Enterprise features to a cloud environment.

The US gov't is a big AWS customer and perhaps soon-to-be much bigger depending on who (AWS or Azure) wins the Pentagon's JEDI contract worth $10 billion. Currently it's being contested

[MrEcho]

Well the Government stuff is on its own setup. And as far as I remember the FIPS stuff is just verified packages and versions.

[swagg_boi]

The government traditionally operated their own datacenters with their own gear but for the most part it was mostly "COTS" (commercial off-the-shelf); not sure what you mean by "government stuff on its own setup." The government couldn't just buy any old hardware or software though it would have to be compliant with standards such as FIPS. Now there's a push to move things to the cloud as potential cost-savings but that doesn't mean FIPS goes away and now there's new standards to adhere to such as FedRAMP which are standards specifically for cloud service providers wishing to do business with the government. This is all very boring to us but interesting to companies wishing to rake in the big bucks via government contracts which is why it's being advertised. I don't work for a government contractor anymore but I do work for a company that provides CDN services to government contractors and we're often asked by these customers about FedRAMP or "FedRAMP+" compliance presumably because the government will require this to do business with them

[CommunityMember]

Agreed. The FIPS compliant also looks weird. (who cares FIPS compliant if you're not part of the Gov. or its contractors?)

Some of the PCI/HIPPA/etc. compliance requirements refer to FIPS standards. And while companies may not have FIPS as a strict requirement, being able to point to compliance may make security audit reviews easier/faster/cheaper (and possible provide some mitigation/protection for when the inevitable incident occurs).