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

321–330 of 334 posts

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

#321

Post by MandieD »

MandieD wrote: post #309
jussij wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Too late to add this edit: now that I've thought about it for a bit, I think that many of our software purchases are via software resellers. One of the main reasons is that getting a new vendor approved by Accounting for payments is a slow, painful (to us) process that involves Legal (contracts!). As I'm neither an accountant nor a lawyer, I'm willing to accept that they have good reasons for their processes (preventing me from easily funneling money to a relative, for example) and just see it as another fact of corporate life instead of railing against it. In return, they do us the courtesy of accepting that they can't just install whatever they like on their PCs.

Legal is often still involved when it comes to new software products, because, among other things, there's GDPR. Oh, and Works Council.

My main point remains unchanged: relying on tens of thousands of end users to manage their licenses is something that large enterprises just can't do, so we end up with rules that seem draconian, and you, the hopeful seller of software/services to be used in corporate environments, will benefit from understanding how we work, even if you think it's stupid.

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

#322

Post by bobleeswagger »

HelloNurse wrote: post #298
bobleeswagger wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> They said they intend to delete customer data if they don't switch to paid plans

Customers who are running businesses and knowingly breaking the ToS? I'm not sure why businesses like Docker aren't allowed to defend their revenue.

It's actually pretty hilarious how many of you are coming out of the woodwork to attack Docker, they are not the enemy in any way, shape or form and if they disappear you're gonna miss them.

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

#323

Post by bobleeswagger »

trinsic2 wrote: post #317
bobleeswagger wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

You couldn't be more out of touch on this topic. Keep playing victim though, it's cute.

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

#324

Post by jzb »

sgammon wrote: post #274
jzb wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But what’s their debt and running costs?

so it is impossible that such a thing could be eclipsed by revenues?

I don’t think I said anything about possible or impossible. But their revenue is only one part of the equation. If you don’t know the other numbers, it’s not particularly useful to say here’s a big number they must be profitable.

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

#325

Post by voytec »

B1FF_PSUVM wrote: post #225
voytec wrote: post #101

> This impacted less than 2% of our users. Ah, only 2%. Completely irrelevant number. Move along.

It baffles me that, for such small quantities, they don't just "grandfather" existing users and only change conditions for new signups. The insignificant problem would sort itself out in time, instead of creating a lot of friction and a plume of dumpster fire smoke, for very little or no gain at all.

The percentage of users used in this corpo-speak may likely be counted against active and inactive accounts and almost certainly is not equal to percentage of transfer costs.

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

#326

Post by burnished »

trinsic2 wrote: post #318
burnished wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The 'problematic' phrase is right before the section detailing who is not impacted - which is what many people are going to want to know! "Wait, should I be worried about this?'

This is an example of my point actually - these types of posts are magnets for people that cannot be pleased.

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

#327

Post by burnished »

throwwwaway69 wrote: post #187
xboxnolifes wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's.... why they are saying it was poor communication.

They did in the OP link. To say now in comments "It's not contradictory" is not owning up to it being bad communication

What? That does not follow at all.

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

#328

Post by WWLink »

MandieD wrote: post #52
WWLink wrote: post #13

Ah, good ole Docker. When they did the "it's not free anymore" rugpull on Docker Desktop, I couldn't use it at work anymore since they wouldn't invoice us for less than a 50 seat license. Unfortunately, a lot of businesses won't buy things without invoicing for legal reasons. It really upset me because I had a pretty solid workflow with docker desktop on a mac. Now I can't use that anymore. I am not surprised they co…

Hey! They decided to do invoicing, after all! When they couldn't find a way to take purchase orders in the initial license obligation round and we were going to have to go through a third party licensing service to pay, we did a little math, and realized that it was cheaper to let one of the guys on the DevOps team create and maintain the customized WSL install option, with the bonus of steering the developers to our…

Yea the WSL option is what most places I know are doing. Unfortunately, I like using MacOS so it won't work for me haha. I don't trust the team writing the generic free version for Macs.

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

#329

Post by nunez »

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.

is it?

sometimes I want a container running the latest version of something. maybe i'm integration testing my stuff against that release to make sure stuff still works. or maybe I'm hoping a bug was fixed and will version pin later.

i agree that production software should version-pin all the things, but latest still has a place.

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

#330

Post by dns_snek »

goodpoint wrote: post #306
dns_snek wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You don't have to lecture me about the pitfalls of willingly relying on for-profit companies or the benefits of decentralization, but in the case of Docker we don't really have much of a choice unless you're suggesting that don't use it at all.

Images are published wherever the author decides that they're published and these changes are going to affect everyone who relies on an image that used to be hosted on Docker Hub.

Post reply on HN