Take a look at https://www.turnkeylinux.org/ - their images are available as VMDK, OpenStack, Xen, Docker, among others. Their images are all hackable too.
A friend of mine likes to point out that while Trump has a lot of polls with him as their top pick (among the Republican field, I presume), there are far fewer with him as their second or even third pick. As other candidates start to drop out, those that remain will start to gain the "second" and "third" pick supporters while Trump will remain with relatively the same amount of supporters. I think in the end, it will be hard for Trump to keep up the support he has in crowded field against a more narrow field with saner candidates.
> A friend of mine likes to point out that while Trump has a lot of polls with him as their top pick (among the Republican field, I presume), there are far fewer with him as their second or even third pick.
Polls rarely (if ever -- I can't remember ever seeing one that did) actually ask for and track second and later picks, and even if they did, I don't think there is much basis to expect that they are stable and predictive.
> As other candidates start to drop out, those that remain will start to gain the "second" and "third" pick supporters while Trump will remain with relatively the same amount of supporters.
That's not an implausible guess, though the motion since there has been any attention on the race has mostly been from other candidates to Trump.
> I think in the end, it will be hard for Trump to keep up the support he has in crowded field against a more narrow field with saner candidates.
Lots of people -- many of them non-Republicans or Republican establishment figures -- have said things like that, and it may be true, or it may be people projecting their own preferences and perception of what constitutes political "sanity" onto the Republican primary electorate.
Actually, according to the latest CNN/ORC International Poll, Trump is the leader in the second choice polling, as well as first choice. Granted, take early polls with a grain of salt.
This article leans on that 250 number pretty hard. The executive quoted in the article states that 120 of that 250 found other work within Disney by January 30. The end result being little more than an internal transfer of roles. 40 retired, and 90 "did not find new Disney jobs"
This article says nothing of the underlying restructuring that occurred where the focus of the department was shifted from sustainment to development.
It mentions nothing of the laid off employees out of that 90 that found jobs with the consulting companies that would be handling the sustainment work and ultimately sitting at same desk, doing the same work, for more money.
Also, the 40 that retired weren't simply offered 3 months salary and let go. They had the choice to look for other work within the company, look for other work elsewhere, or use the many years of experience they had vested with the company and take a retirement package.
There are also those that lost their jobs as part of that "90" (not 250) on January 30, that were able to rehired at the company in subsequent months in other roles.
Source: I actually work for Disney, in IT, in the building pictured in the article.
I feel like this article is a bit sensationalist and lacks the other side of the story. I work for Disney IT, in the actual building pictured in the article. The layoffs in question were the result of a restructuring where many departments were shuffled and changed with an emphasis on new development work. Many employee's were reassigned and transferred, along with those employee's whose roles were removed. My understanding was that the purpose of the restructuring was to put more new development in the hands of actual company employee's with ongoing sustainment work shifted to the hands of contracted employee's. Many of the roles that were shifted to contractors included responsibilities for 24/7 call support and working general trouble tickets.
I cant really speak to the visa status of the contracted employees (I know that seems to be a lot of the focus of the comments in this thread). I do know that many of the people that were impacted by this restructuring found roles in other parts of the organization (which was mentioned in the article), many doing active development work on other projects. These employees included a wide range of ages and experience levels, so I really don't buy that agism was part of this decision. I do not know what those employees ended up making in the new roles, but I do have years of experience with the HR policies of this company and would be very surprised if those employees weren't making at or near their previous levels. With that said I really don't feel there were significant financial gains to be had by shifting those 250 roles around. I recently saw some internal figures showing that the number of non-contractor Disney IT employees has actually gone up slightly in the past year. This could be creative accounting statistics or it could be that there truly is not some scheme to replace knowledgeable local employees with less knowledgeable out-sourced employees as the article suggests. My experience and gut says the latter is more likely than the former, but that is my own opinion. I wont speculate on the disposition of the employees that are truly displaced and out of a job as a result of this restructuring, but I do feel for them, and hope for the best for them.
I've been in my IT role with Disney for only a few years (I have many more years in non-IT roles), but for me, I like the emphasis on actual development, and less on ongoing sustainment. I personally don't feel like my role or those around me are at risk of being replaced by an out-sourced team. I also work closely with some of the "managed services" folks, and appreciate that they will be handling the monitoring and calls in the wee hours while I get to create cool stuff during the day.
Disclaimer: I by no means speak for Disney or it's IT department. This is all my personal observation and opinions.
Actually I would hope they did feel their roles might be at risk given they had 90 days notice for the actual layoff plus many prior notifications in the months leading up to those last 90 days about the change in direction the department was taking.
I really don't understand the tone in comments from this whole thread in general. Many companies, large and small, make decisions that result in a change of direction or focus. The results of those changes may mean that some of roles are no longer needed. Is it inherently negative for an IT group to say they want to focus on new development and not sustainment? Is it because out-sourcing is "bad"? Is it because Disney is a large corporation and "enterprise" has such a negative connotation?
I honestly want to understand this better, because I don't get why there is _so_ much negativity around this.
"I have decided to stop developing CrunchBang. This has not been an easy decision to make and I’ve been putting it off for months. It’s hard to let go of something you love.
When I first started working on CrunchBang, the Linux landscape was a very different place and whilst I honestly didn’t know if there was any value to it, I knew there was a place for CrunchBang on my own systems. [...] CrunchBang filled a gap and that was nifty.
So, what’s changed?
For anyone who has been involved with Linux for the past ten years or so, I’m sure they’ll agree that things have moved on. Whilst some things have stayed exactly the same, others have changed beyond all recognition. It’s called progress, and for the most part, progress is a good thing. That said, when progress happens, some things get left behind, and for me, CrunchBang is something that I need to leave behind. I’m leaving it behind because I honestly believe that it no longer holds any value, and whilst I could hold on to it for sentimental reasons, I don’t believe that would be in the best interest of its users, who would benefit from using vanilla Debian."
