Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

docker.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 334 posts

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

#131

Post by mikesir87 »

patmcc wrote: post #125
mikesir87 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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?

(from the Docker DevRel team)

"During that period" refers to the 30-day period. During that time, the images are accessible. After the 30-day period, they will still be pull-able, but not able to be updated.

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

#132

Post by femto113 »

mellowyeller wrote: post #3

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.'

It's worse than just handwaving, it's straight up nonsensical. Perhaps it is literally true that only 2% of distinct accounts that log into Docker Hub have this plan, but for the vast majority of people "using Docker Hub" means "pulling public images from Docker Hub", not "logging into Docker Hub", so by a more reasonable criteria (say % of images pulled) I'm sure its at least an order of magnitude greater.

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

#133

Post by PhysicalNomad »

I stopped using Docker entirely after the Moby mess, when Podman came around without needing a daemon, and better runtimes became available for Kubernetes. It's been the inferior product for a long time, only kept alive by the dev mindshare they gained early on.

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

#134

Post by sofixa »

gpm wrote: post #110
mekster wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With what?

Someone on lobste.rs mentioned quay.io (maintained by redhat) as an alternative to dockerhub. Anyone have any experience with it?

It started as a CoreOS project and for a long time it was the only ebterprisey registry, and it included security scanning. Had some availability issues some time ago, but AFAIK today it's pretty good.

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

#135

Post by [deleted] »

mikesir87 wrote: post #99
nielsole wrote: post #56

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…

[deleted]

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

#136

Post by giaour »

dawnerd wrote: post #54
giaour wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess that those 2% of users account for more than 2% of the load on Docker Hub. Open source projects on a regular release cadence would push images more frequently than your average user, and those public images from the projects themselves were probably used in FROM statements more frequently than other images.

Obviously but they should use that metric of resources used vs how small the impact is.

I think they used one metric (resources used) when deciding to kill free teams, then their PR team scrambled to find another metric to make the whole kerfuffle seem like a tempest in a teapot when the backlash hit.

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

#137

Post by jussij »

floatinglotus wrote: post #128
YuriNiyazov wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And surely that's a problem for the employee's company, only because they're the ones imposing the restriction, not some external third party.

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

#138

Post by [deleted] »

tyingq wrote: post #130
nmjohn wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

[deleted]

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

#139

Post by vertis »

mikesir87 wrote: post #99
nielsole wrote: post #56

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…

Deleting 'organization data' absolutely read that they would delete everything. Changing direction and back pedaling with a non-apology is borderline insulting.

I understand the need to make money as a company, but it really is biting the hand that fed messing with open source maintainers

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

#140

Post by tyingq »

nielsole wrote: post #56

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…

Both sound like "you won't be able to update them", so images sort of permanently squatted and growing tech debt, potentially vulnerabilities, etc. They should really allow for configuring the ":latest" tag to raise a 404 or something if this is what all that means.
Post reply on HN