Live data from Hacker News

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

docker.com

301–310 of 334 posts

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

#301
post #260
post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But the original statement did not say all access, it merely said access:

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

Assuming that the you in that sentence is the organization and not the general public (given the use of your organization earlier in the paragraph), the logical interpretation is that they meant write access here, and not all access -- since read access is not limited in any way to the you in that sentence.

Yes, I agree the original messaging was terrible. But claiming that the original can only have meant all access is not consistent with the wording of the announcement.

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

#302
post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

This...

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

#303
post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And surely that's a problem for the employee's company, only because they're the ones imposing the restriction, not some external third party.

Big companies have people around whose sole job is to make sure that all software that needs to be licensed, is licensed, and that these licenses are the exact ones that meet the providers' rules. This usually means that you are not allowed to use a personally-owned license on a company computer. Why? Because the consequences of getting this wrong can be far more expensive than whatever productivity gains you, the in…

What are the 'consequences of getting this wrong'? Surely if a company has 'y' users all wanting to use a software product that company purchases y+1 licenses just to make sure they are covered. The problem is a company wanting 'y' licenses more often than not want a y where the y is 1 and they're not looking to engage the thought of making a y+1 purchase. However, they still want to be invoiced for the purchase and have their payment come 30 days later, which will require many additional hours chasing that late payment that comes 45 days later. Yet somehow, they don't understand every scammer uses the exact same approach, but of course the scammer never bothers with the pretense of offering to actually pay any late bills, so in fact scammers cost the software provide less in the way of lost time.

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

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither npm nor NuGet are volunteer driven organizations. npm is owned by Github, NuGet is owned by Microsoft, and I'm sure that there are dozens of other examples behind many key pieces of free dev&ops infrastructure that are owned by for-profit companies.

Are they allowed to do it? Of course! Are we allowed them to call them out on their bait & switch tactics? Of course, what else are we supposed to do?

Just because something is common, like building a user base based on implicit promises and then pulling the rug once the service reaches critical mass, doesn't mean it should be accepted and normalized.

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

#305

Earlier 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 probably want to pin to at least a major tag to avoid auto-pulling breaking changes at any moment but still getting security updates.

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

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Neither npm nor NuGet are volunteer driven organizations. npm is owned by Github, NuGet is owned by Microsoft, and I'm sure that there are dozens of other examples behind many key pieces of free dev&ops infrastructure that are owned by for-profit companies. Are they allowed to do it? Of course! Are we allowed them to call them out on their bait & switch tactics? Of course, what else are we supposed to do? Just becaus…

> npm is owned by Github

And GitHub is owned by Microsoft, duh. And they don't do this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts.

> what else are we supposed to do?

How about not falling for the same trap again and again instead?

> ... pulling the rug once the service reaches critical mass, doesn't mean it should be accepted and normalized.

Then don't sit on that rug.

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

#307
post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Can nix run images created with docker?

Yes.

See https://nix.dev/tutorials/building-and-running-docker-images

Or do you mean run as in "use docker image(s) within a nix expression". Like if you have a webapp with a nix devshell but want to start the docker postgres container for development?

You can do that too, yes.

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

#308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> I can easily install many apps hosted at the Docker hub but how would I achieve that without Docker hub,

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you mean.

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

#309
post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Big companies have people around whose sole job is to make sure that all software that needs to be licensed, is licensed, and that these licenses are the exact ones that meet the providers' rules. This usually means that you are not allowed to use a personally-owned license on a company computer. Why? Because the consequences of getting this wrong can be far more expensive than whatever productivity gains you, the in…

What are the 'consequences of getting this wrong'? Surely if a company has 'y' users all wanting to use a software product that company purchases y+1 licenses just to make sure they are covered. The problem is a company wanting 'y' licenses more often than not want a y where the y is 1 and they're not looking to engage the thought of making a y+1 purchase. However, they still want to be invoiced for the purchase and…

If your company can credibly show that we knew that there were instances of your product running on several hundred of our PCs, but we can't prove that we were paying for the licenses, you can sue us for a lot more than those licenses would have cost, depending on where you're located and where we have official presence. You might not win, but you're still going to cost us a lot of money and time. Relying on tens of thousands of users to potentially manage their own licenses for thousands of products would be an absolute nightmare.

But why do we know what users have installed on the PCs assigned to them, aside from the licensing? When your product has a security hole (and unless your product never, ever talks to the Internet or other devices, it will someday), we need to know exactly who has it so that we can force them to patch. Again, tens of thousands of users with potentially thousands of products that need to have security issues tracked. Nightmare.

So if your custom software house** doesn't want to sell us your product in a way and provide management mechanisms that we feel comfortable with, then we'll find one of the many that does, or is happy to work with our preferred resellers. Or we will help departments redesign their processes to not need it.

Corporate IT cares deeply about what managers want, as they pay the bills. If they want your product for their subordinates, we will work to make that happen in a way that keeps our legal department and IT security management happy. Corporate IT cares deeply about users being able to use the products and services their managers are paying for. Corporate IT does not give a fig what individual users want, if they can't get their managers to pay for the cost of us dealing with that new product.

Negotiating license agreements and tracking usage, as I said before, is a full time job for several people. I am fortunately not one of them, but I've worked with them when supporting products within the company. Large companies do not employ these folks out of charity.

Corporate IT and corporate life is certainly not for everyone. Corporate IT doesn't work this way because we're humorless prigs; it works this way because there are billions in sensitive data and intricate production processes to protect, and tens of thousands of well-meaning folks who are competent in things other than infosec potentially providing network access to people who are not well-meaning.

If you want that sweet sweet corporate cash, figure out how to accommodate their purchase and IT management processes. Software resellers may be a good compromise. If you don't want to deal with corporate purchasing, don't be upset when a lot of your potential users end up with someone else's product.

** Anything smaller and more niche than SAP may as well be a "custom software house".

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

#310
post #186
post #175

Earlier 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]

Demanding human treatment in all circumstances constitutes a healthy outlook on life. Letting organizations get away with shady tactics should never be tolerated in any society. It may not change anything but it's still important for society to speak out against bad policies and bad decisions
Post reply on HN