“As part of integration planning, and following an organizational needs assessment, we identified go-forward roles that will be required within the combined company.”
Totally devoid of any humanity. Corporate jargon freaks me out. It shouldn’t, but it really gets to me.
Shareholders are the worst creation of capitalism so far.
It allows you to create anonymous gray masters that you must serve at any cost no matter how humanly heinous they are.
Also, the bad thing that can happen to the shareholders is that they lose a little money whereas the people beholden to the shareholders can lose everything they have including their souls, and all the shareholders have to do is say “I had nothing to do with it, I just bought a piece of paper, I didn’t even get a piece of paper I got an nft” and wash their hands of the whole thing.
The fact that our retirement accounts are being used to fund the hedge managers that create small shareholders that run the businesses that fire us so that the large shareholders get more money now in hopes that in some theoretical future the small shareholders get enough money to enjoy our twilight years is absolute insanity.
I think it’s totally reasonable to be weirded out by corporate jargon. It’s so 1984 esque. It seems like it’s created to help capitalists do their best not to lie in legal terms while at the same time communicating to their shareholders that money matters while also still trying to put on a facade of humanity for the PR front.
It’s so gross.
It is jargon for sure, and bloviating to mask layoffs.
A merger will always have layoffs because there will be duplication of roles, especially in lower/middle management.
Some duplication may also occur in boots-on-the-ground roles, depending on the companies.
If your company is being acquired, you need to assume you, the employee, are disposable and not the reason for the acquisition.
There are several places - Computer Associates was the olther classic place - until it was bought by Broadcom.
Mergers always mean layoffs.
Especially with their sizes: Broadcom has 20,000 employees and VMWare has 38,000.
Guess I’m moving to proxmox
Free ESXi will also be killed off I bet
I’ve been using PM for about a year now. It’s quite nice, although I’ll fully admit I’ve barely scratched the surface of what it can do. I’ve heard a lot of people transition to Prox and adapt fairly quickly.
It’s not… A walk in the park, and some stuff will have you manually editing files, as the UI might be missing those. But so far I’ve been a happy user for a bunch of years.
As someone who moved to Proxmox for my 3-node homelab, good luck.
I find the automation for deploying VMs to be woefully incapable compared to Terraform/PowerCLI on the VMware side. Not to mention things like load balancing/DRS are flat out missing.
I managed to get it stable enough for homelab-y things like *arr, plex, DNS, etc - but at this point I would quit rather than use it in a production environment. Or maybe I would just look at bare metal kubernetes instead.
IaaS or gtfo? I would love to see more development in this area, but I think you might be covering a bit too much ground with “in a production environment”. Tons of smaller (and not so small) companies are still running piles of bare metal chaos and could benefit greatly from even the simplest Proxmox setup.
Huh, I use terraform for my Proxmox clusters without any major issues. What kind of trouble does it give you?
The biggest issue is being in aware of migrations for load balancing. If VM 1 is deployed to Node 1 with Terraform, then is moved to Node 2 at some point for load balancing, Terraform tries to recreate it on Node 1.
Also, I have a slight moral objection to one of the top providers being developed by a for-profit prison company.
I still fail to see how this benefitted anyone at either Broadcom or vmware
