Live data from Hacker News

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

docker.com

151–160 of 334 posts

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

#151
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Big companies have people around whose sole job is to make sure that all software that needs to be licensed, is licensed, and that these licenses are the exact ones that meet the providers' rules. This usually means that you are not allowed to use a personally-owned license on a company computer.

Why?

Because the consequences of getting this wrong can be far more expensive than whatever productivity gains you, the individual employee, claim to be achieving.

Docker, for example: we had absolutely no interest in individual users directly accessing their online features (we took a bit of trouble to block them, in fact), so theoretically, the free Personal licenses should have been fine. No.

Ok, so just have each Docker user pay that $5 themselves. How do we make sure every person who has Docker installed on their PC really is paying for a license? Even if we gave them all corporate cards, and Docker was going to be cool with several hundred accounts (or more) from the same domain not being on the "Business" plan, we then get to set up a process with Accounting to make sure the PC scans match the payments.

This might all sound ridiculous to start-up/boutique employees, but is a basic fact of life in corporate IT... which Docker was hoping to get a lot of money out of.

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

#152

Lots of people outraged here, but did any organization step up to fill this (perceived) gap? Docker is way too generous IMO. Petabytes of freeloader data they'll never generate a nickle from. Everyone around here wants people to pay $20/month for some newspaper, and spend $0/month on infrastructure that helps run the internet. It's crazy town.

> Lots of people outraged here, but did any organization step up to fill this (perceived) gap?

Well, quay already exists.

> Everyone around here wants people to pay $20/month for some newspaper, and spend $0/month on infrastructure that helps run the internet.

And you believe that those 2 ideas are both held by the same people?

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

#153
post #139

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…

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

They really think we're idiots!

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

#154

Two solutions that don't seem to be mentioned: 1. Let any user have how many "free teams" they want, but restrict the image size (under 1GB?) and/or downloads (under 1,000/month?). Maybe let the community vote for open source images exempt from this restriction. 2. Run a free link redirect service: user registers my-team on hub.docker.com, links my-team/my-image with their preferred registry my-registry.com , client-…

3. Let paying teams sponsor free teams. Maybe allow multiple organizations to sponsor a single team. (The free team should be able to refuse sponsorship on a case by case basis)

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

#155

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…

Can the images be updated after the organizational data is gone? If not, is there a security concern, since vulns are likely to be discovery in future?

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

#156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

WotC tried to retroactively revoke an open gaming license that had been in widespread use since 2002. They had a legal theory why they could do this, but that theory contradicted quite a few public statements they had made on record. IP lawyers had very mixed opinions.

Many TT-RPG players enjoy reading rules carefully and figuring out fun ways to "exploit" them. So everyone jumped on WotC's changes and dissected the implications. And many companies in the larger ecosystem quickly announced plans to ship their own games competing with D&D.

WotC decided to back down and to just use Creative Commons, which largely resolved the immediate issue.

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

#157

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…

rolls eyes OR, their marketing and DevRel departments and their engineering departments simply had a miscommunication; when it was realized, the present post was composed. This kind of thing happens inside companies all the time, including the one you're probably working at right now. No need to get up in arms over it.

People who are busy working aren't going to rush to HN to post about how they understood the announcement and are reacting as needed.

People who are bored (like me) will post rants and accusations.

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

#158

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…

Exactly ! I remember the original email mentioned deletion and now they say "we never said that". Time to get rid of Docker in our world.

Please share a copy of that email.

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

#159

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…

Communication isn't about you meant, it's about what the person you're communicating to thought you meant.

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

#160
post #66
post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

One of the difficulties of public relations is communicating to multiple audiences at once. One of Docker’s audiences are the paying customers who outside that 2% and would want some assurance that if docker makes errors, those errors are smaller in magnitude. This statement seems like it is aimed at assuaging the worries of that audience. Is it good practice? I do not know.

> One of the difficulties of public relations is communicating to multiple audiences at once. Why not just release multiple statements and links? "Click here for customized PR statement if you are a open source developer" "Click here for customized PR statement if you are a closed source developer" "Click here for customized PR statement if you are an executive who can't code" "Click here for customized PR statement…

What if you are a "closed source developer" at work but an open-source one during your free time? What if you are a billionaire codes? What if… etc. You could make TL;DR's targeted at specific audiences, but you still need the same introduction for everyone.
Post reply on HN