MinIO stops distributing free Docker images • Hacker News Board

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#581

Post by fakebizprez » Sat, Nov 01, 2025, 4:20 PM UTC

tw04 wrote: post #258

mattbee wrote: post #89

They abandoned documentation (edit: for the open source codebase) a couple of weeks ago - that seems more significant. From their Slack on Oct 10: "The documentation sites at docs.min.io/community have been pulled of this morning and will redirect to the equivalent AIStor documentation where possible ". [emphasis mine] The minio/docs repository hasn't been updated in 2 weeks now, and the implication is that isn't goi…

>The price of support comes in at at slightly less than the equivalent amount of S3 storage That's absurd. I would be running to NetApp and Dell for competitive object storage quotes then. Haven't done pricing on either one recently but at least a few years ago they were roughly half the price of S3 all in (including hosting costs).

Dell is one the VCs they raised capital from =(

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#582

Post by smartbit » Sat, Nov 01, 2025, 9:20 PM UTC

Kevinmetaba wrote: post #546

smartbit wrote: post #332

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here an S3 compatibility table https://garagehq.deuxfleurs.fr/documentation/reference-manua... comparing - GarageFS - OpenStack Swift - CEPH Object Gateway Rados - Riak CS - OpenIO

[flagged]

GarageFS is supported by NLnet *. NLnet is very Open Soucre minded and sees no objection in supporting it due to the AGPL. Maybe AGPL isn’t that Open Source unfriendly?

And indeed I noticed that OpenIO isn’t updated for quite some time.

* https://nlnet.nl/project/Garage

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#583

Post by sarchertech » Wed, Nov 05, 2025, 3:09 AM UTC

Dylan16807 wrote: post #579

sarchertech wrote: post #576

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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

If they can delay getting a new version for a few hours they can delay getting a new version for a few months.

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

It would be nice for them to do that, and it’s fine to be disappointed if they don’t, but anger is uncalled for unless it was malicious.

But ignoring that, it isn’t like they are shutting of a live service without warning. They’re just no longer offering an image. You can keep using the images that you had saved indefinitely. A warning wasn’t necessary.

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#584

Post by 1dom » Thu, Nov 06, 2025, 1:07 PM UTC

arghwhat wrote: post #577

1dom wrote: post #573

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 is weird to proscribe that a human should act in an inhuman way, like trying to provide a subset of actions they're allowed to do in response to you - that's not how humans work. It's weird because most people accept that others humans can act how they want, often with some pattern, so when you're saying humans have to act in a particular way, and how they're only entitled to certain actions in response to you: that's weird.

> This translates to "I will not change my stance so you need to change yours".

Sorry, what languages do you think you're translating to/from here? How did it translate the fact that humans are pattern recognition machines into my personal stance which I must change for you? How am I supposed to change this fact that you're unwilling to accept? Why are you unwilling to accept it? It's supported by a lot of inventions literature, and it would make your life and those around you happier?

> 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.

like I said, point to this unreasonable or abusive behaviour here - I don't see it - I see you getting upset about humans being humans.

> 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.

So why haven't you walked away from me? :)

Re: MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

#585

Post by arghwhat » Wed, Nov 12, 2025, 11:31 AM UTC

1dom wrote: post #584

arghwhat wrote: post #577

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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 is weird to proscribe that a human should act in an inhuman way, like trying to provide a subset of actions they're allowed to do in response to you - that's not how humans work. It's weird because most people accept that others humans can act how they want, often wit…

> It is weird to proscribe that a human should act in an inhuman way,

No, it is weird to suggest that just because humans do something it becomes "human" and acceptable (it is not), just like it's weird to suggest that humans generally accept this (they don't).

Theft, abuse (verbal or physical), slavery, murder, rape, etc., are all "human" in that many humans do it, might have it stem from relatively natural urges, and might have internally reasoned that their actions are sound and justified. It is normal and accepted to classify certain human behaviors as "wrong" and unacceptable. See: any country with a legal system.

Outside legal concepts, humans also strongly and explicitly discriminate in who they find acceptable and pleasant by virtue of including (and exclusion) from their social circles and choice of partner, with responses ranging from procreation to complete exclusion, active avoidance and even intense reactions upon unwanted meetings.

Actions have consequence, and accepting/including an abusive individual is masochism.

> How did it translate the fact that humans are pattern recognition machines into my personal stance

The problem here is that you confuse the concept of "fact" with "opinion". Your definition of humans as "pattern recognition machines" is neither fact nor decisive in the matter. It's just an idea and belief that you personally prescribe to, which I neither agree with nor find relevant.

If anything, we're stimuli-optimizing, work-minimizing procreation machines, and neither that nor your description is relevant to the discussion. Even if we did fit your description, it has no implication on the outcome of "acceptable behavior".

> So why haven't you walked away from me? :)

Discussing unreasonable and abusive behavior is not the same as enacting or experiencing unreasonable or abusive behavior. Imagine if you got a speeding ticket for dicussing that speeding should be okay.

Granted, I might walk away anyway by virtue of the discussion being rather unproductive, but hey it's my time on the planet and so only I get to decide if I want to waste it. :)