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

231–240 of 334 posts

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

#231

Post by ilyt »

foobiekr wrote: post #226
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…

So you’re going to continue to host images that have severe remote code execution exploits? With no way for the person who posted them to ask people not to use them?

It appears that even after nonapology they still don't get the fucking problem.

The whole thing only needs docker infrastructure getting hacked because it used some of the now-orphaned containers to complete the shitshiw

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

#232

Post by ilyt »

mikesir87 wrote: post #131
patmcc wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>>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.

Delete them.

Keeping them read only is literally the worst solution. Old images that can't be updated and accrue security flaws, all while uninformed users see address still work and assume nothing needs to be changed.

Your corporation picked literally worst way to do it.

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

#233

Post by mayli »

> For those of you catching up, 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.

Why do you really want to kill those 2% of your users?

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

#235

Post by ilyt »

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.'

They are trying to use small number they conjured from the statistics to diminish the scale of the problem.

99% it is "the number of accounts affected" and not anything to do with number of downloads of images hosted there.

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

#236

Post by [deleted] »

quijoteuniv wrote: post #20
threeseed wrote: post #4

Not sure how this changes anything. Their open source program [1] only grants a free 1-year Docker Team subscription. After which time the whole system is unusable. And most of those features aren't what open source teams even need which is surely just basic multi-user access. They really should have just tightened the entry criteria for their open source offering if they were so concerned about it being misused. htt…

Too little, too late, everyone i know is looking for ways of leaving docker for good. This last announcement just cemented the lack of confidence in the platform. As someone put it to me recently:» a bunch of execs trying to squeeze out a dying platform for a bonus before moving to another money sqeezing project.» At work we made the plan to leave today.

[deleted]

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

#237

Post by ilyt »

YuriNiyazov wrote: post #113
WWLink wrote: 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."

It's pay out of your own pocket vs be less productive yet still paid same by company.

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

#238

Post by grrowl »

computronus wrote: post #22

Reading carefully about image deletion: * "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 le…

Would be worried that the old images will still be distributed, but if an open source maintainer needed to push an update (e.g. for security reasons) they'd need to sign up to the paid account

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

#239

Post by dang »

actually_a_dog wrote: post #118
dang wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to Hacker News.

I’d say that’s a very substantive comment. The fact that you don’t want to hear it does not affect the substance. Of course, I realize I’m saying this on a site that literally makes unpopular comments harder to read lol, and where I’m only allowed to post ~5 comments at a time, meanwhile nobody will tell me why.

> nobody will tell me why

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29042583

Edit: I just took a look at your recent comments and they seem mostly fine—and some are very good (thank you!), so I've removed the rate limit from your account. I'm taking a bit of a risk in doing that but if you'd meet us halfway in good faith, that should be more than enough to solve the problem.

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

#240

Post by pmoriarty »

terom wrote: post #182
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…

If you are deleting the organizational data and effectively archiving [1] all the images, keeping only the option for public images to be pulled but not updated... then how will affected maintainers be able to delete their now out of date public images after the 30 day cut-off? You will have to retain enough of the organization data to allow that to happen. Keeping the public images available in an archived state is…

"somewhat irresponsible for the `latest` tag. A `latest` tag that cannot be updated is ... worse than no `latest` tag"

What's irresponsible is relying on a "latest" tag for updates.

Post reply on HN