Live data from Hacker News

We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

docker.com

121–130 of 334 posts

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#121
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think that's what they're trying to say: you're not an affected user if it's not your image, because you can't download it in the first place.

Meaning I can't download it because their account was zapped after the 30 days? I could certainly download it before all this.

Nope - public images are not affected - you never would have been able to download a relevant image if you weren't in the private org.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#122

Previous communication: > If you don't upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images. New communication: > We’d also like to clarify that public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them. We’re sorry that our initial…

Reminds me of the gaslighting of the D&D community recently around changes to the license there. It’s like watching a five year old who’s convinced he can fool his parents.

sorry what d&d license change?

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#123

Faq does not include the most asked question: "Why the fuck are you still so bad at this?"

(from the Docker DevRel team) Ha! Just had to say... this gave me a good laugh! We're trying to get better... I swear! Comms are hard. We'll get there.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#124

The third sentence in their apology is "This impacted less than 2% of our users." What is that supposed to convey? It feels like a handwave. 'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.'

> 'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.' They could choose not to share any data, which is what most companies default to. You're complaining about something so small as if they aren't handling this entire thing beautifully at this point. They noticed their mistake, and corrected it swiftly to keep the community from bifurcating. What else do you want, exactly?

It feels like people just enjoy digging into outrage - this sort of nit picking at specific phrasing in communications is baseless, and happens for literally any incident where an apology is issued.

Its wild how the same people will complain that some corporate missive is completely content-free while at the same time punishing any attempt at earnest communication by scouring the missive for a raised edge to take offense at.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#125

Previous communication: > If you don't upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images. New communication: > We’d also like to clarify that public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them. We’re sorry that our initial…

(from Docker DevRel team) > Given these statements directly contradict each other Actually... they aren't contradictory. The organization data will be retained for 30 days and is subject to deletion. That data includes the teams, memberships, etc. But, it wasn't clear what we were going to do about the images. Keeping the public images is important as many other images build on top of them. > It feels like they chang…

>>>During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images.

What did this mean in that case? That the images will continue to exist but the maintainers cannot update them? They'll just become orphaned?

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#126
post #111

The third sentence in their apology is "This impacted less than 2% of our users." What is that supposed to convey? It feels like a handwave. 'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.'

I'm guessing this sentence is aimed at current and future investors.

Is it even possible that there will be future investors?

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.' They could choose not to share any data, which is what most companies default to. You're complaining about something so small as if they aren't handling this entire thing beautifully at this point. They noticed their mistake, and corrected it swiftly to keep the community from bifurcating. What else do you want, exactly?

> What else do you want, exactly? There's a world of difference between "This impacted less than 2% of our users." and "This impacted about 2% of our users." The first implies that they have up to 2% of users which they don't respect, and undermines their apology. I agree that it's good that they responded quickly, and I know there's a tradeoff between fast and perfect.

How is that your read here? It feels completely arbitrary

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#128
post #13

Ah, good ole Docker. When they did the "it's not free anymore" rugpull on Docker Desktop, I couldn't use it at work anymore since they wouldn't invoice us for less than a 50 seat license. Unfortunately, a lot of businesses won't buy things without invoicing for legal reasons. It really upset me because I had a pretty solid workflow with docker desktop on a mac. Now I can't use that anymore. I am not surprised they co…

Ah, the good ole "my company won't pay for a $5/month tool that I like because the tool maker won't invoice my company for less than 50 users, so instead of paying $5/month myself on my credit card, I literally 'can't use it anymore' out of principle."

That’s not the problem. The problem is that companies forbid their employees from using it if they can’t pay for it.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#129

> ...we recently emailed accounts that are members of Free Team organizations, to let them know that they will lose features unless they move to one of our supported free or paid offerings. This impacted less than 2% of our users. What percentage of those orgs / users hosted popular docker images? Surely, 2% is a small enough number to warrant a public apology?

Plus, this isn't 2% of the random people who have created an account since 2013, it's the images that everyone freeloads off of.

Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams

#130
post #121
post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Meaning I can't download it because their account was zapped after the 30 days? I could certainly download it before all this.

Nope - public images are not affected - you never would have been able to download a relevant image if you weren't in the private org.

I'm still confused. As I understood, for example, "httptookit" is one of the affected accounts.

They have public images here: https://hub.docker.com/u/httptoolkit

The original announcement said:

> If you don't upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images.

That sounds a lot like the public images were subject to deletion. At the very least, subject to being frozen in time and not updated/updateable, which can be worse in some cases.

Post reply on HN