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

251–260 of 334 posts

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

#251

Post by [deleted] »

saurik wrote: post #193
Symbiote wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Docker is sunsetting Free Team organizations Free Team organizations are a legacy subscription tier that no longer exists. This tier included many of the same features, rates, and functionality as a paid Docker Team subscription. After reviewing the list of accounts that are members of legacy Free Team organizations, we’ve identified yours as potentially being one of them. If you own a legacy Free Team organization,…

This is the exact quote that was already up-thread of here, and they absolutely are not claiming they "never said that"; instead, they are clarifying that "organization data" does not include "public images", and while that's confusing, I can appreciate why they didn't think it would be and--lo and behold--they are publicly apologizing for being so confusing and taking the hit for having done so.

[deleted]

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

#252

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#253

Post by bruce511 »

ilyt wrote: post #232
mikesir87 wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(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.

>> Your corporation picked literally worst way to do it.

I disagree. The worst way would be to make a blanket decision for all projects on their behalf.

This way they let the project maintainer decide.

For projects that don't get updated, it's better to leave them where they are.

For projects that are changing the maintainers can choose to delete (or move to a paid / OSS plan).

Choice is good, and giving that choice to maintainers is good.

The final act if goodness (and I'm not clear yet) is whether maintainers will be able to delete an image at some point in the future. Like say a year from now. Possibly by creating a paid account, and "reclaiming" that image.

Personally I agree that your advice to delete them may be the best option for most maintainers who have decided to leave. And they currently have the ability to do that.

Hence my assertion that your statement is incorrect.

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

#254

Post by derefr »

Lazare wrote: post #246
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…

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 use…

I’m guessing they mean “write access.”

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

#255

Post by bigiain »

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?

I wonder what a court would think about who'd be legally liable there?

BigCo or GovDepartment gets popped via a known exploit against a fixed bug in an OSS project, but GitHub has prohibited the project from updating the explicable image they host without paying a ransom of $420/year?

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

#256

Post by bigiain »

saurik wrote: post #188
mmcnl wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are right, it's two different messages. I always am annoyed by how companies apologize for the communication or the confusion arising after the communication. As if we, the public, didn't understand properly or are too dumb to understand what they tried to say. We understood perfectly and the _message_ was dumb, not the communication around the message. It doesn't feel like an honest apology.

Dude: "the message" is "the communication".

"No no no, the message in our contradictory communication is actually the message that you can interpret that contradiction with if you have this new piece of previously undisclosed information! How could you possibly have been confused by that? We are DevRel, we are communication professionals..."

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

#257

Post by bigiain »

gpm wrote: post #110
mekster wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With what?

Someone on lobste.rs mentioned quay.io (maintained by redhat) as an alternative to dockerhub. Anyone have any experience with it?

Given the CentOS shit, I'm not convinced jumping from Docker Inc to RedHat is appropriately mitigating the risk of a corporate rug pull once they've decided its time for the next step in their enshittification plan...

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

#258

Post by bigiain »

sitzkrieg wrote: post #95
sleepytimetea wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

im looking forward to hipster posts about compiling and running your stack directly on a machine. probably one, and it'll be faster. that'll be great

No no no, you build your stack, transpile it to WASM, and run it on your user's phones! WebRTC to run a distributed shared database across every phone that's not behind NAT! No servers. No databases. No electricity bills. Your backend hardware fleet automatically updates itself every couple of years _and pays_ for it itself!

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

#259

Post by ParetoOptimal »

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 super interested in the ecosystem you mean here. I'm assuming that you mean ecosystem around images like kubernetes, ECS, etc like the other commenter guessed?

If so, I think Nix being able to create docker images addresses that specific concern.

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

#260

Post by Lazare »

derefr wrote: post #254
Lazare wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 use…

I’m guessing they mean “write access.”

Write access is a subset of all access, so I don't think we can really argue that the plain meaning of the original statement was about removing write access.

But yes, a missing word is certainly a plausible explanation for how they issued a statement that meant the opposite of what they apparently intended.

Post reply on HN