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

241–250 of 334 posts

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

#241

Post by gcoakes »

mekster wrote: post #103
notbuyingit wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want actual reproducable, actual portable software, Nix. Otherwise there are countless other OCI runtimes, cri-o, containers, etc. Kubernetes doesn't even use Docker. What a thing, docker. I can't get over the staying power it has had despite... Everything.

How do I run the ecosystem the docker already has with nix alone? It's not just the runtime.

I'm not certain what "ecosystem" means in this context, but you can build docker images using Nix. It's actually pretty cool because the image only contains the runtime dependencies of whatever you throw in the container. No package manager or build system is included. I've only tinkered with Nix, nothing in my professional life, so YMMV.

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

#242

Post by pmoriarty »

tyingq wrote: post #140
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.

By replying on a tag for your security you're opening yourself up to vulnerabilities.

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

#243

Post by Aeolun »

jobs_throwaway wrote: post #208
Aeolun wrote: post #201

> 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?

Maybe excuse is the wrong word.

It’s like saying: “It only affected 2% of our users, therefore we figured it wouldn’t be a big deal. Nobody cares about 2%.”

It’s those two percent they’re aiming to apologize to isn’t it?

Then of course they missed the fact it would impact the entire OS community…

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

#244

Post by paranoidrobot »

pmoriarty wrote: post #240
terom wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's not* just `latest` tags, it will also affect any other image tag.

If you've been referencing org/image:tag where tag=major-minor, and gets updated when there's a patch, then that's going to stop getting updated.

Without either the tag being deleted (and thus your pulls failing), or going out to find updates on that container - you may not notice that it's fallen out of date and the image/tag is no longer being updated.

With the entire organisation being removed from Dockerhub, it sounds like there's not even going to be a way for people to say "We've moved off Dockerhub, our images/source/etc is now over here".

You'll just have to search and hope you can find where it's moved to.

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

#245

Post by mbreese »

golem14 wrote: post #184
bombcar wrote: post #164

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have learned that public images are NOT organization data!

With the organization data gone, will there be a way to update the retained images, like security fixes etc? If not, then this could become very dangerous.

Really, if they delete the org data and images can’t be updated, it might just be better to delete them all just to avoid these inevitable issues (maybe with a longer delay). Just rip the band-aid off and be done with it.

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

#246

Post by Lazare »

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…

I understand you are in a difficult position, but this is a bit absurd.

> During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images.

The only reason that sentence would be in there is if after that period you would lose access to the public images! And from Merriam-Webster, "access", verb, definition two: "to open or load (a computer file, an Internet site, etc.) a file that can be accessed by many users at the same time".

> it wasn't clear what we were going to do about the images.

No, it was quite clear; after the 30 day period we would not be able to pull the images. That's what the announcement said. It was not ambiguous. That may not have been the policy or what was intended to be announced, but the issue here isn't a lack of clarity.

(Also, letting the images stay accessible but disallowing any changes is only marginally better than just removing them, so the current policy - whether or not it's the same as the originally announced policy - is still terrible.)

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

#247

Post by willdr »

gardenhedge wrote: post #57

"We’d also like to clarify that public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them." Was HN spreading fake news then?

Honestly, not removing them but putting them in a readonly state is worse than removing them.

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

#248

Post by nstart »

ericb wrote: post #25
eyeareque wrote: post #17

I’m guessing they did this change because the cost of giving a free service isn’t cheap for docker?

It seems the concept of a loss leader is "lost" on Docker. Some MBA with a spreadsheet at Docker hasn't realized that where the upstream OSS goes, the rest follow.

I have no idea about their internals but I’m curious how many people used docker’ own registry offering as their repo manager of choice because it’s configured to lookup the docker registry by default. Easier to setup pipelines and dev env workflows etc.

If this move means that people have to now manage access to multiple registries like quay and ghcr, will that also incentivize people to go ahead and try migrating to these other registries. Especially given that dockers own registry has such poor permission management.

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

#249

Post by MBCook »

hectormalot wrote: post #35

Compared to the recent apology from Fly.io [1], Docker's corporate apology is terrible. Fly's was open about the struggles they faced and how they feel about it, empathetic to their customers, and come across as genuine (also reinforced by mrkurt's active follow up both in their community, as wel as here on HN). Docker's on the other hand is none of that, and full of corporate PR red flags: - "This only impacted less…

> It tells me they see this as a 'loud minority' problem

I don’t think that’s what it is. I think it’s minimizing. Don’t worry, it’s only 2%.

The problem is that’s 2% directly. If my organization has a Docker license, we’re not effected because we’re commercial.

But that’s not true is it? If we use Docker there is a very good chance that we use or base some of our images on open source images. We’re effected indirectly.

I admit it’s probably not possible to measure, maybe even estimate.

But the total number of organizations this change will be a problem for us way more than 2%. And they don’t want to admit it.

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

#250

Post by tyingq »

pmoriarty wrote: post #242
tyingq wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

By replying on a tag for your security you're opening yourself up to vulnerabilities.

Relying? I was assuming a 404 for "latest" might cause people to look into what happened with the image and find it's new home. Without locking them out of specific versions if they needed them for some reason.
Post reply on HN