> This impacted less than 2% of our users.
Hmm, I’m not sure how I feel about them making excuses a few sentences into what is supposed to be an apology.
We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
201–210 of 334 posts
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#202Earlier 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
I have no horse in this race, but fwiw, I can see how this mistake would be made honestly. Organization data could be easily refer to just the metadata of the organization, and depending on how the product is structured[1], could feel quite different from public images.
[1] Disclaimer: I don't know how the product is structured.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#203Earlier quoted context omitted.
[flagged]
Nah, it's this guy sitting in here trying to tell us how we're supposed to think, that it wasn't their fault we were stupid, that's the issue I have. I don't give a flying FUCK about Docker as a company; whether they live or die matters less to me than when I'll have to pee next.
No, you were not "stupid", and no one is claiming that!! In fact, Docker has gone out of their way to publicly apologize for saying something that was so inherently confusing that it led people--including myself, btw, and I don't even like or use Docker--to believe something they did not mean (that public image would be deleted). If they had written an article saying "we're sorry you're so dumb" I'd get your vitriol, but they are actively apologizing for their poor communication and trying to fall on their sword for causing a misunderstanding... what more do you want?!
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#204Previous 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…
> Actually... they aren't contradictory.
you're on the Docker DevRel team, why are you talking like this? why do you feel the need to be confrontational? not a good look.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#205Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#206Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#207Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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 time, you will maintain access to any images in your public repositories, though rate limitations will apply. Specifically (emphasis mine): > During that time, you will maintain access to any images in your public repositories So, the logical conclusion, which l…
[flagged]
[flagged]
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#208> This impacted less than 2% of our users. Hmm, I’m not sure how I feel about them making excuses a few sentences into what is supposed to be an apology.
How is that an excuse? What do you define an excuse as?
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#209Lots 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?
I'm aware of Quay, I don't know the exact features that are going away, perceived or otherwise, from Docker that I can say this would fit everyone's usecase.
> And you believe that those 2 ideas are both held by the same people?
If I had to generalize the audience here, yes.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#210Earlier quoted context omitted.
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!
Relying on a free service for important work? Maybe they are right.