21–30 of 334 posts
If you don't meet the strict criteria of the Open Source Program, for example you are a for profit company publishing an open source image, you can't upload new versions of your public images. Your images are one CVE away from becoming useless.
If you do meet the criteria, they will build images for you. No way to have your own build process. All artifacts are made public.
* "public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them"
* "Public images will only disappear if the maintainer of the image decides to proactively delete it from Docker Hub. If the maintainer takes no action, we will continue to distribute their public images."
This sounds good, but it would be better to explicitly say "if you opt to let your free organization be suspended, Docker Hub will continue distributing your public images indefinitely anyway". It feels like there's a loophole here where if a public image comes to have no maintainer - because they abandoned its organization - then it no longer benefits from this assurance. That seems unlikely, but given how this change has been going so far, it's tough to give Docker the benefit of the doubt.
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.'
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?
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.'
The 2% they’re referring to are businesses that are using Docker’s hosted services for free. The majority of the outrage was from people thinking about the non-business users, that is, open source projects, which Docker unintentionally implied would be impacted by this change. Docker are apologising for their poor communication which made people think this change applied to more than just a tiny portion of the user b…
I’m guessing they did this change because the cost of giving a free service isn’t cheap for docker?
Some MBA with a spreadsheet at Docker hasn't realized that where the upstream OSS goes, the rest follow.
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…
Support request sent, I wish there were more clear on what "Topic" and "Severity" this kind of request falls into.
#HugOps to the tech support team that's going to be flooded with requests.
Also, just switch to Podman already people…
This company raised $400M+ and they cannot be arsed to implement a feature to change account types.