Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 585 posts

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#571

Post by [deleted] »

fukka42 wrote: post #109
supermatt wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

freeloader (OED): a person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return. Sounds exactly like freeloading to me. You may think of that term negatively, but it is exactly what it is.

What a weird take. Open source projects exist to be used. If you didn't want people to use it, it wouldn't be open source. As such the users are doing exactly what the creator wants: using their product. This helps the creator in many different ways. Of course many creators are selfish. Once they have benefitted from everyone using their project they think: we want more. Then the rugpulls start. They think they no lo…

[deleted]

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#572

Post by Dylan16807 »

arghwhat wrote: post #570
Dylan16807 wrote: post #568

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Free things tend to push out competition. So the worst case scenario is pushing out competition and then disappearing.

This happens more often with paid things, as these have a direct financial incentive to elliminate competition and grow adoption. Free stuff does not.

When it's a free option from a paid company, you get the worst of both worlds for risk of disappearing. And that's the situation here.

The open source baseline is still there, which is great, but if someone else was making these packages they'd be less likely to silently drop it.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#573

Post by 1dom »

arghwhat wrote: post #565
1dom wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No. There is no valid justification, and the suggestion otherwise suggests a lack of understanding of what exactly these rude individuals are demanding. Like I said, the fact that people are human, and that minios did a thing repeatedly, is why the expectation is there. Saying it's not justified is like saying the sky isn't justified being blue, getting upset and frustrated about it is even more silly. There's no n…

> Like I said, the fact that people are human Repeating something unreasonable does not make it reasonable. If I donate to charity for 10 years in a row, someone might come to expect my donation, sure. If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. There is no requirement for warning. Heck, in this particular case the whole "charity…

> If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations.

I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree. I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses, and getting upset that it's not just gratitude.

If you see the world that way, you're never going to see my point which is that humans recognise patterns, and that creates expectations. Price doesn't matter. You can repeat all you want that those expectations should just be gratitude, but they're clearly not, that's why we're having this discussion.

I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are. If you base your expectations in what we both see in reality, then you'll accept that they're not going to just be gratuitous. That's not because they're horrible people, it's because they're humans that recognise patterns and have a biological cost to patterns being disrupted.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#574

Post by naikrovek »

nullfield wrote: post #569
naikrovek wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think even 50 years ago, that most people started businesses because they had a skill and could use it to help others meet their needs. HP started (more than 50 years ago) with two friends who wanted to make better electronic test equipment. Profit was not forefront in their mind like it is to an MBA graduate today. Hewlett and Packard wanted to provide quality test equipment to people, because a lot of the test eq…

It was still profit-motivated back then, at least in the positive self-interest manner. The difference is that colleges actually educated students, and students were actually there to learn.

some were, maybe. most weren't. most businesses started symbiotically without profit being the #1 concern at all times. Making enough profit to continue the business is indeed important if you want the business to continue, but as soon as profit becomes your primary goal, you go from being a symbiotic member of society to a parasitic member of society.

Seeking profit above all else is not healthy.

Creating a business used to be done by people who had a skill and wanted to make a living doing it. They wanted their business to be their job. No blacksmiths started a business because they wanted to become rich. They wanted to be blacksmiths, they had pride in their work, and they wanted to have money to live as well.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#575

Post by quietbritishjim »

imiric wrote: post #419
quietbritishjim wrote: post #416

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No, it doesn't. Yes, there are general safety regulations in any country, but there are no hard rules as to what "satisfactory" or "fit for purpose" means. There are not specific rules for every type of product in consumer law because that wouldn't be workable. Instead, you have to make your case in court, if it gets that far, that it doesn't meet that criteria. The judgements have to be made by squishy fallible hu…

It's remarkable how you keep ignoring my point. I set a deliberately contrived example to illustrate why someone might be understandably upset when a service or product they've been enjoying degrades in quality, regardless of whether they paid for it or not, and the parallels that situation has with OSS rug pulls. Yet you've managed to make this about consumer protection laws, for some reason. Since the conversation…

I ignored your point because it wasn't relevant to what I was saying. I was just pointing out a factual error.

It's a bit like someone pointed out a simple spelling mistake in your comment, so you rewrote your whole argument at them. Or even claimed that you had spelled it right after all!

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#576

Post by sarchertech »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #563
sarchertech wrote: post #562

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If someone says “we have no plans to stop hosting this party, but we can’t promise anything concrete” and you decide to depend on that party without a backup, you’re behaving like an idiot. This analogy has been tortured to within an inch of its life though. People could keep using the old docker images while they trivially build their own. If you want to make the example fit it’s more like “hey we’re still having th…

The docker users do generally have a backup. But being shoved onto a backup sucks, and with no warning it's even worse. That level of promise is what you get with 95% or more of products and services. It's not like you can avoid it. I understand the impulse to say that these expectations are unreasonable so nobody should get mad. But when companies cultivate those expectations on purpose, it stops being unreasonable…

>Being shoved onto a backup

What do they do when a server is down?

>But when companies cultivate those expectations on purpose, it stops being unreasonable to get mad.

On the one hand I get that. But on the other hand, I see the exact same anger when it’s just some guy or a 2 person company that decides to stop doing some work for free.

If you limit your argument to it’s scummy for a company to offer something for free with the goal of creating a dependency that they can exploit by removing the free version and then offering a paid version, then I agree.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#577

Post by arghwhat »

1dom wrote: post #573
arghwhat wrote: post #565

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Like I said, the fact that people are human Repeating something unreasonable does not make it reasonable. If I donate to charity for 10 years in a row, someone might come to expect my donation, sure. If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. There is no requirement for warning. Heck, in this particular case the whole "charity…

> If I chose to lower or stop my donation, the only response others are entitled to is gratitude for the remaining and past donations. I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree. I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses, and getting upset that it's not just gratitude. If you see the world that way, you're never going to see my point which is that humans recognise patterns, and…

> I think it's weird that you're trying to proscribe people's allowed responses

There's nothing weird about classifying behavior as rude, nor about refusing to waste my limited time on this planet on those not deserving of it.

It's an entirely natural part of every-day life to make such distinction, necessary even to avoid things negatively impacting mental health, and I think it's weird to suggest otherwise.

> I can't make humans not be pattern recognition machines, but you can update your mental model to accept that they are.

This translates to "I will not change my stance so you need to change yours". I have no reason to or incentive to change my stance to accept unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive behavior in response to creating free things, so no.

I don't care why someone is being unpleasant, unreasonable or abusive, nor do I need to - I'm not their therapist, and it's perfectly valid for me to just walk away.

> I'm sorry, I don't think we're going to agree.

That's fine.

Granted, I'd prefer if users stopped such unreasonable behavior as it's more healthy to not have toxic interactions than having to mentally ignore them (or worse, respond, report or ban them), but can't win every time. It would've been more productive for the users too.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#578

Post by arghwhat »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #572
arghwhat wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This happens more often with paid things, as these have a direct financial incentive to elliminate competition and grow adoption. Free stuff does not.

When it's a free option from a paid company, you get the worst of both worlds for risk of disappearing. And that's the situation here. The open source baseline is still there, which is great, but if someone else was making these packages they'd be less likely to silently drop it.

> The open source baseline is still there, which is great, but if someone else was making these packages they'd be less likely to silently drop it.

Packages are deprecated and orphaned all the time, including in OSS package repos. It's often silent by virtue of the package maintainer just... ignoring it, until someone takes administrative action by just whacking the package.

> When it's a free option from a paid company, you get the worst of both worlds for risk of disappearing. And that's the situation here.

I don't really see that as having any impact. I also don't see a packing method for an active free project being deprecated as anything having "disappeared". People just need to update their deployment, just like if the release had included a breaking change.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#579

Post by Dylan16807 »

sarchertech wrote: post #576
Dylan16807 wrote: post #563

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The docker users do generally have a backup. But being shoved onto a backup sucks, and with no warning it's even worse. That level of promise is what you get with 95% or more of products and services. It's not like you can avoid it. I understand the impulse to say that these expectations are unreasonable so nobody should get mad. But when companies cultivate those expectations on purpose, it stops being unreasonable…

>Being shoved onto a backup What do they do when a server is down? >But when companies cultivate those expectations on purpose, it stops being unreasonable to get mad. On the one hand I get that. But on the other hand, I see the exact same anger when it’s just some guy or a 2 person company that decides to stop doing some work for free. If you limit your argument to it’s scummy for a company to offer something for fr…

> What do they do when a server is down?

They can delay getting new versions for a few hours with no issue. But when they stop entirely it's a problem.

> On the one hand I get that. But on the other hand, I see the exact same anger when it’s just some guy or a 2 person company that decides to stop doing some work for free.

Well I'm not defending the anger in all cases. If it's that small they deserve a lot more slack. But they should still give a warning period and/or put in some effort to finding a new person from the community to put in charge.

> If you limit your argument to it’s scummy for a company to offer something for free with the goal of creating a dependency that they can exploit by removing the free version and then offering a paid version, then I agree.

Once the dependency exists, it's bad to cut it off without warning, even without an exploitative goal.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#580

Post by alwyn »

Hendrikto wrote: post #61
weli wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation, people will rely on that and will chose your software based on that expectation. You suddenly deciding that you won't be offering updated Docker images especially after a CVE and with no prior notice (except a hidden commit 4 days ago that updated the README) is approaching malicious-level actions. If they truly cared ab…

> When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though. > people will rely on that and will chose your software based on that expectation That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody. > You suddenly deciding that you won't be offering updated Docker images […] is appro…

> That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody.

Even as a paying customer on a $1m/yr contract, still using the open source distribution because AIStor is not something we are keen on, we were not informed whatsoever.

They were well aware we were still using those container images, and we were by far the only paying customers doing the same.

This is malicious.

Post reply on HN