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

311–320 of 334 posts

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

#311

Post by trinsic2 »

saurik wrote: post #203
ok_dad wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nah, it's this guy sitting in here trying to tell us how we're supposed to think, that it wasn't their fault we were stupid, that's the issue I have. I don't give a flying FUCK about Docker as a company; whether they live or die matters less to me than when I'll have to pee next.

No, you were not "stupid", and no one is claiming that!! In fact, Docker has gone out of their way to publicly apologize for saying something that was so inherently confusing that it led people--including myself, btw, and I don't even like or use Docker--to believe something they did not mean (that public image would be deleted). If they had written an article saying "we're sorry you're so dumb" I'd get your vitriol,…

I didn't see any apology I saw an attempt to reframe the issue because of public backlash

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

#312

Post by trinsic2 »

djha-skin wrote: post #108
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…

rolls eyes OR, their marketing and DevRel departments and their engineering departments simply had a miscommunication; when it was realized, the present post was composed. This kind of thing happens inside companies all the time, including the one you're probably working at right now. No need to get up in arms over it.

No need to try and reframe or defend a bad decision. The should be held to account.

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

#313

Post by julianlam »

bombcar wrote: post #213
worksonmine wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't believe it was a miscommunication. Even if it was a company as important as Docker inc, mentioning DELETING containers requires some care and should raise some flags at any serious communications department. This is not just the wrong date for a convention in the newsletter. What impact does it have on the ecosystem they've built? Some really serious projects use Docker and even if they have their own reposit…

This is why I believe that they changed what would happen after the pushback and are trying to hide that they changed. In reality they were probably just going to disable access to updating all along and then maybe someday delete things, but didn’t want to say exactly that.

The thing is, if images are still accessible, then they still incur egress costs for Docker, thus negating the potential cost savings from this move.

So at best, they just tanked their reputation for... minimal cost savings?

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

#314

Post by julianlam »

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

Wait, that's hipster now? Isn't that a graybeard thing?

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

#315

Post by julianlam »

bigiain wrote: post #262
themitigating wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you run a company wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay. This can't be worth the trouble changing everything

Sure. This is just a big "fuck you" to non company supported open source projects, as it turns out even ones labelled "sponsored css" on Docker Inc's own website. Which are all clearly insignificant and unimportant, dumb little command line utilities and libraries like, say, curl... https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/2314#issuecomm...

Hi, ah... perhaps I'm an idiot for asking, but why does a near-ubiquitous system utility like curl need to be installed via a container? Is it not available on something like Alpine... and if so, then maybe it should be?

It's like saying I have to install `vi` via Docker... please don't tell me vim has a Docker hub repo too...

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

#316

Post by trinsic2 »

femto113 wrote: post #132
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.'

It's worse than just handwaving, it's straight up nonsensical. Perhaps it is literally true that only 2% of distinct accounts that log into Docker Hub have this plan, but for the vast majority of people "using Docker Hub" means "pulling public images from Docker Hub", not "logging into Docker Hub", so by a more reasonable criteria (say % of images pulled) I'm sure its at least an order of magnitude greater.

Yea. I don't think its necessary to even add that part since it seems the only reason they are responding is due to the negative backlash from the open source community. The fact that they added the % appears to me as an attempt to marginalize and compartmentalize the perception of this decision so it doesn't spread into the perception of their paying customers. Good luck with that.

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

#317

Post by trinsic2 »

bobleeswagger wrote: post #176
foobarbecue wrote: post #33

Earlier 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…

Another attempt to marginalize. Maybe you should apply for their PR position.

An Olive branch is, "We fucked up, sorry about that, this is what we are going to do, or not going to do moving forward to fix the issue.

Fuckery is "We apologize but it was only poor communication and it only impacted a small and insignificant part of the community".

This isn't an Olive branch. Its damage control with an attempt to change perception. Its not even remotely close to trying to right a wrong.

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

#318

Post by trinsic2 »

burnished wrote: post #124
bobleeswagger wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.' They could choose not to share any data, which is what most companies default to. You're complaining about something so small as if they aren't handling this entire thing beautifully at this point. They noticed their mistake, and corrected it swiftly to keep the community from bifurcating. What else do you want, exactly?

It feels like people just enjoy digging into outrage - this sort of nit picking at specific phrasing in communications is baseless, and happens for literally any incident where an apology is issued. Its wild how the same people will complain that some corporate missive is completely content-free while at the same time punishing any attempt at earnest communication by scouring the missive for a raised edge to take off…

There is no earnest communication in that message, that was damage control with an attempt to change perception.

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

#319

Post by bombcar »

julianlam wrote: post #313
bombcar wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I believe that they changed what would happen after the pushback and are trying to hide that they changed. In reality they were probably just going to disable access to updating all along and then maybe someday delete things, but didn’t want to say exactly that.

The thing is, if images are still accessible, then they still incur egress costs for Docker, thus negating the potential cost savings from this move. So at best, they just tanked their reputation for... minimal cost savings?

Egress is (relatively) cheap and the amount of it will dwindle over time as the images become more and more "out of date".

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

#320

Post by HelloNurse »

rswail wrote: post #296

So 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?

Why should remote image storage rely on relatively slow and complex resilient and extremely scalable P2P distributed technology instead of just downloading big files and verifying digital signatures from one authoritative repository?
Post reply on HN