I'm afraid that I don't accept the apology. You are taking money from my organization, making it hard for my organization to administrate the users you ask money for because it is not enough seats and then communicate something that I can construe as having potential for a supply-chain attack on my production environment. I get it you need to make money, but without SSO for smaller enterprises you have us and them scrambling for alternatives.
We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
291–300 of 334 posts
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#292Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
I can easily install many apps hosted at the Docker hub but how would I achieve that without Docker hub, unless everyone starts hosting things elsewhere but that'll take a good while assuming the community's consensus is to ditch Docker altogether.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#293Layering vendor tools in boom times is great! Free offerings are generous, tools help enormously getting greenfield projects started. We can pipe tools together and with a shinny new front end we can bring a new product to market in days, maybe hours. We can even release our own tooling as frameworks, a nice career boost to developers involved.
Then comes the crunch times, and suddenly random vendors can rug pull your entire operation.
Yet we keep doing it every boom time because it's so easy!
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#294I don’t get the hate of Docker as a company. Yes, this is crap technology that incentivise resource inefficiency at its peak form, but this is how stacks like ruby or python are at least working. Still, docker org invented all the tools, gave them for free, promote, document and support them, gave free global registry that can be filled by anyone and contains petabytes of trash, with free thousands of terabytes of eg…
This is my reason why I hate them: https://lwn.net/Articles/676831/ and specifically this: https://lwn.net/Articles/676938/
All the discussions from the Docker team regarding SystemD feel like they want to push Docker Swarm and see SystemD as a threat to their business model. It would not supprise me if they downtalk Lennart Poetterin on a personal level.
Also to this day if we want to setup complex test scenarios we need the --privileged flag to run Docker in Docker.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#295Earlier quoted context omitted.
Relying on a free service for important work? Maybe they are right.
Silly us, I suppose we should stop relying on APT/RPM/what-have-you Linux package mirrors, NPM, NuGet, PyPi, Hex, RubyGems, Crates, ... too.
No. There's a huge difference between a volunteer driven organization and a for-profit company.
Their goals are completely different. The latter is not there to give you services. It's there to maximize shareholder value.
It's sad to see that HN can't even tell the difference anymore.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#296So we need a generic artifact repository (containers are just one type) that also maintains an SBOM (with a machine readable format, eg SPDX) for the artifact content.
Is anyone going to fund that?
We have a way to do that with git (and signed commits) that covers source code.
Is there something that someone can build out of P2P/IFPS/? that would allow that to happen, including some form of search/identification?
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#297Earlier 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…
>Actually... they aren't contradictory. They are. Your intent may not have been contradictory, but the messages received by everyone else were contradictory. You should own that if you are serious about doing better. Your intent doesn't really matter in these situations.
More cynically, the intent might be blaming image maintainers: since obsolete images that appear current are a problem, responsible maintainers will delete them before losing access; then Docker will be able to tell inconvenienced end users that the maintainers autonomously and unnecessarily decided to remove their images.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#298Earlier quoted context omitted.
> What else do you want, exactly? There's a world of difference between "This impacted less than 2% of our users." and "This impacted about 2% of our users." The first implies that they have up to 2% of users which they don't respect, and undermines their apology. I agree that it's good that they responded quickly, and I know there's a tradeoff between fast and perfect.
> There's a world of difference between No there isn't. This is entirely subjective and you're acting like they said "Fuck our customers" when they just shared data. Anything you want to imply beyond that says more about you than it does about any part of Docker. > The first implies that they have up to 2% of users which they don't respect, and undermines their apology. Where does this implication come from? Why is D…
They said they intend to delete customer data if they don't switch to paid plans: this means "fuck our customers", collectively and indiscriminately, not only the selected foreclosed accounts but everybody that depends on them.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#299Earlier quoted context omitted.
You missed his point. He's saying "latest is an anti-pattern". Which is correct. Everyone should be pinning to specific versions or semver to avoid being accidentally upgraded to a release with breaking changes. Yes, obviously making existing tags immutable is bad. Nobody is disputing that.
There are exceptions though. I'm the kind of person that would pin Jenkins to latest even if it is an antipattern. I'm way more concerned about security flaws than a temporary CI breakage. So for me: Everyone should be pinning Jenkins to latest to avoid accidentally staying on a release with security holes.
You are not only auto pulling fixes bit also auto pulling new security holes though.
My take on Jenkins with all its plugins is that it need to be properly shielded from external access anyways.
Re: We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker Free Teams
#300Ugh. We war-roomed, and subsequently kicked off a big project this morning to replace most, if not all, docker in our infrastructure and dev systems with podman. The first messaging clearly read to me that they would delete everything (including images), the second just seems like they backtracked internally despite claiming a different meaning for the original message. I have lost trust in this company.
If Docker had any sense of leadership and community, they would have predicted that this petty extortion would have caused severe damage and loss of trust.
This is irrational, self-destructive greed, not the more usual transparent and regretful removal of generous pricing plans and unsustainable services that dotcoms have made the public familiar with.