[HN Gopher] We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the e...
___________________________________________________________________
We apologize. We did a terrible job announcing the end of Docker
Free Teams
Author : mmbleh
Score : 377 points
Date : 2023-03-16 19:41 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.docker.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.docker.com)
| manifoldgeo wrote:
| > This impacted less than 2% of our users.
|
| I think they mean it impacts less than 2% of user _accounts_. Not
| every account is created equal. If you were an open-source org
| with millions of image downloads a month, having your org deleted
| would have an outsized effect on the community. Many more Docker
| Hub users than 2% stand to be affected by these changes, even if
| the nominal value of 2% of user accounts is accurate.
|
| Also, this "apology" does not feel even 2% apologetic. "I am
| sorry you misunderstood us" is not an apology. They're running
| the seldom used "docker pull gaslight:latest" command.
| [deleted]
| Aleklart wrote:
| I don't get the hate of Docker as a company. Yes, this is crap
| technology that incentivise resource inefficiency at its peak
| form, but this is how stacks like ruby or python are at least
| working. Still, docker org invented all the tools, gave them for
| free, promote, document and support them, gave free global
| registry that can be filled by anyone and contains petabytes of
| trash, with free thousands of terabytes of egress monthly. They
| gave away all their intellectual work to RedHat/bazaar and
| participate in development of "open standards" for free. And now
| when they take away some expensive toy, developers became hostile
| and call them unreliable.
| franky47 wrote:
| > You can migrate to a Free Team organization to a Personal
| account by opening a support ticket. No action will be taken
| against your account while your ticket is being processed.
|
| Support request sent, I wish there were more clear on what
| "Topic" and "Severity" this kind of request falls into.
|
| #HugOps to the tech support team that's going to be flooded with
| requests.
| chillbill wrote:
| What I'd like to know is why the hell is there so many Docker
| editions/licenses? Did docker just hire people who made Windows
| vista?
|
| Also, just switch to Podman already people...
| antoineMoPa wrote:
| Doesn't podman use docker.io images by default?
| mkl95 wrote:
| > You can migrate from a Free Team organization to a Personal
| account by opening a support ticket. No action will be taken
| against your account while your ticket is being processed.
|
| This company raised $400M+ and they cannot be arsed to implement
| a feature to change account types.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > How can I see if I'm affected?
|
| > Please consult the Organizations page of your Docker account;
| any affected organizations are labeled "Docker Free Team" in the
| "Subscription" column. Less than 2% of Docker users have a Free
| Team organization on their account.
|
| Interesting theory, but no; _my_ account is paid, but I 'm using
| third party images that are rather harder to verify.
| xbar wrote:
| Who is docker for now?
| wkdneidbwf wrote:
| oh glorious docker thank you for completely changing course and
| not deleting our data and then acting like you never said you'd
| delete it in the first place.
|
| fuck docker!
| ericb wrote:
| If they are listening to feedback, first is that a 30 day
| timeframe sends the message that "we feel our profit is more
| important than whatever else you are working on, so much that you
| should either pay us, or if you cannot afford it, immediately
| halt your other activities to reduce our costs." None of that
| builds trust.
|
| As someone affected, I'm ok with paying.
|
| * I don't like feeling tricked
|
| * I don't like feeling held hostage
|
| * Make your changes in a manner that preceding the announcement
| with "SURPRISE!" wouldn't be fitting
|
| This was done with no notice--basically a bill for RIGHT NOW with
| no warning, and it seems that the only reason for that was greed?
| Docker just hit 100 million in ARR. I mean, really, you can't
| afford to role this out gracefully?!?
| bpodgursky wrote:
| I can assure you that Docker is not trying to protect any
| profits. More like... slow the cash hemorrhage.
| ericb wrote:
| Docker is over 100 million ARR from what I understand, so
| that's a strange thing to say.
| hackernewds wrote:
| how can you "assure" that?
| throitallaway wrote:
| Docker Hub has become deeply integrated into the workflow of
| development/pipelines/runtime environments/etc. Announcing
| something like this with 30 days notice is extremely insulting.
| They're a software company (maybe not...?) and should be well
| aware of the amount of interruption that a 30 day notice on
| something like this causes.
| hectormalot wrote:
| Compared to the recent apology from Fly.io [1], Docker's
| corporate apology is terrible. Fly's was open about the struggles
| they faced and how they feel about it, empathetic to their
| customers, and come across as genuine (also reinforced by
| mrkurt's active follow up both in their community, as wel as here
| on HN).
|
| Docker's on the other hand is none of that, and full of corporate
| PR red flags:
|
| - "This only impacted less than 2% of our users" signals that
| they're not really sorry. It tells me they see this as a 'loud
| minority' problem
|
| - "This does not affect [list of 6 other types of subscriptions]"
| -> signals the post is partially being used to promote the other
| subscriptions. Reinforced by the "what are the benefits of a
| Docker subscription" at the bottom.
|
| - It's still unclear (to me) what is the actual implication for
| some of the non-official open source projects here. On the one
| hand they say: "Public images will only disappear if the
| maintainer decides to proactively delete it from Docker Hub".
| Further down they mention "we will defer any organization
| suspension or deletion while the DSOS application is under
| review". Clearly they do intent to suspend organisations, but
| maybe let old images remain? Then the problem remains, as it
| prevents future updates.
|
| Despite what it tries to say in words, (for me) this post just
| reinforces the initial signal of both not understanding and not
| caring about the open source usage.
|
| [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35044516
| ryan29 wrote:
| Edit: It looks like you can migrate from a team to a personal
| account:
|
| > You can migrate from a Free Team organization to a Personal
| account by opening a support ticket. No action will be taken
| against your account while your ticket is being processed.
| imron wrote:
| > I don't get it. It's still exactly the same problem for me.
|
| So you do get it then.
|
| Sorry, not sorry.
| ignoramous wrote:
| > _...we recently emailed accounts that are members of Free Team
| organizations, to let them know that they will lose features
| unless they move to one of our supported free or paid offerings.
| This impacted less than 2% of our users._
|
| What percentage of those orgs / users hosted popular docker
| images? Surely, 2% is a small enough number to warrant a public
| apology?
| klooney wrote:
| Plus, this isn't 2% of the random people who have created an
| account since 2013, it's the images that everyone freeloads off
| of.
| bovermyer wrote:
| I already moved my relevant containers to GHCR.
|
| Side note - Google's "crane" CLI tool was marvelous for this
| purpose.
| siva7 wrote:
| I'm baffled who the heck wrote and approved such a poor
| communication piece with the original mail
| sasakrsmanovic2 wrote:
| Good job on docker to come clean so quickly.
| eatonphil wrote:
| I'm not sure I'd call this "coming clean" since it doesn't seem
| like they really changed anything. They just apologized for
| that what they are doing is upsetting people.
| Aeolun wrote:
| > This impacted less than 2% of our users.
|
| Hmm, I'm not sure how I feel about them making excuses a few
| sentences into what is supposed to be an apology.
| dawnerd wrote:
| So if it's only such a small amount of accounts, then surely it's
| barely a line item. Makes no sense, something doesn't add up
| here.
| giaour wrote:
| I would guess that those 2% of users account for more than 2%
| of the load on Docker Hub. Open source projects on a regular
| release cadence would push images more frequently than your
| average user, and those public images from the projects
| themselves were probably used in FROM statements more
| frequently than other images.
| rightbyte wrote:
| Sure. But what share of their users use those 2% images.
| Surely way more.
|
| Also I don't think Docker grasps how much their users value a
| one way stop for pulling images of OSS.
|
| It is a really stupid move.
| dawnerd wrote:
| Obviously but they should use that metric of resources used
| vs how small the impact is.
| giaour wrote:
| I think they used one metric (resources used) when deciding
| to kill free teams, then their PR team scrambled to find
| another metric to make the whole kerfuffle seem like a
| tempest in a teapot when the backlash hit.
| tananaev wrote:
| The key part for our project is "You can migrate from a Free Team
| organization to a Personal account by opening a support ticket."
|
| Migrating to a free personal account will work for many small
| open source projects. That's what we're planning to do.
| 0xbadcafebee wrote:
| I have nothing against Docker Inc. But it's worth noting that
| this kind of screw up happens when your company, from the top
| down, does not practice a culture in which empathy/compassion for
| people comes first.
|
| In all areas of the business, everyone should first be thinking,
| how does this impact the people using this thing? Have I talked
| to them? Do they understand what's happening? Do they have
| concerns? Have I fully addressed them? Is this going to make
| their lives harder, or will this be scary, or confusing?
|
| It's my biggest pet peeve. Both as a user and an employee. If you
| don't take the time to care, it's really obvious, and an easy way
| to piss people off and inconvenience them. From a business
| perspective that drives customers to your competitors and makes
| employees quit. From a personal perspective, it's just a dick
| thing to do.
| patientplatypus wrote:
| [flagged]
| avereveard wrote:
| Can't they just idk release a list of the images that are likely
| to be impacted unless the owner takes action?
|
| I don't care much of the business decision, it's their house.
|
| I care for the persons I support whom use docker and I dont see a
| way to prepare them without sounding like a crackpot and looking
| like a fool if they after making noise turns out they aren't
| impacted.
| linuxftw wrote:
| Lots of people outraged here, but did any organization step up to
| fill this (perceived) gap?
|
| Docker is way too generous IMO. Petabytes of freeloader data
| they'll never generate a nickle from. Everyone around here wants
| people to pay $20/month for some newspaper, and spend $0/month on
| infrastructure that helps run the internet. It's crazy town.
| yjftsjthsd-h wrote:
| > Lots of people outraged here, but did any organization step
| up to fill this (perceived) gap?
|
| Well, quay already exists.
|
| > Everyone around here wants people to pay $20/month for some
| newspaper, and spend $0/month on infrastructure that helps run
| the internet.
|
| And you believe that those 2 ideas are both held by the same
| people?
| voytec wrote:
| > This impacted less than 2% of our users.
|
| Ah, only 2%. Completely irrelevant number. Move along.
| jdlyga wrote:
| Monetizing what we took for granted as available for free has
| really rubbed everyone the wrong way. I've noticed teams are much
| less likely to request paid Docker Desktop, especially since
| there are perfectly suitable free alternatives nowadays. We all
| use either native docker engine on Windows + WSL2, or the MIT
| licensed Colima on Mac. Honestly, Docker Desktop was always a
| fairly heavyweight and cumbersome app with a very high opinion of
| itself.
| [deleted]
| renewiltord wrote:
| Cool. I'm just glad I don't have to replicate all these images to
| my own ECR.
| r00fus wrote:
| They say that their separate "open source program" (DSOS) is
| completely better than Free Teams. Why didn't they just migrate
| everyone on Free Teams to DSOS and then worry about the
| qualifications for those migrated afterwards (and less
| stringently)?
| evrflx wrote:
| And why don't they answer for nearly a year after submitting a
| request, only to THEN ask to resubmit the request with an
| improved form or something. After which everything goes back to
| silence?
| Macha wrote:
| > What are the benefits of a paid Docker subscription?
|
| > Docker Pro is ideal for individual developers looking to
| accelerate productivity.
|
| > Docker Team is ideal for small teams looking to collaborate
| productively.
|
| > Docker Business is ideal for businesses looking for centralized
| management and advanced security capabilities. Visit our pricing
| page to learn more.
|
| I'm not quite sure that answers the question, just how docker
| would like it's customers to self-discriminate.
| dang wrote:
| Recent and related:
|
| _Docker is deleting Open Source organisations - what you need to
| know_ - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35166317 - March
| 2023 (727 comments)
|
| _Docker is sunsetting Free Team organizations [pdf]_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35154025 - March 2023 (105
| comments)
|
| _Docker is sunsetting Free Team organizations_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35153949 - March 2023 (12
| comments)
|
| Also:
|
| _Elixir: Docker now charges open source orgs $300_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35166579 - March 2023 (38
| comments)
|
| _Ask HN: Docker Alternatives?_ -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35171491 - March 2023 (5
| comments)
| WWLink wrote:
| 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 continue to make foolish moves trying to monetize
| their software.
|
| I get it, you need to monetize your software... but this is dumb.
| YuriNiyazov wrote:
| Ah, the good ole "my company won't pay for a $5/month tool that
| I like because the tool maker won't invoice my company for less
| than 50 users, so instead of paying $5/month myself on my
| credit card, I literally 'can't use it anymore' out of
| principle."
| floatinglotus wrote:
| That's not the problem. The problem is that companies forbid
| their employees from using it if they can't pay for it.
| jussij wrote:
| 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.
| MandieD wrote:
| 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
| individual employee, claim to be achieving.
|
| Docker, for example: we had absolutely no interest in
| individual users directly accessing their online features
| (we took a bit of trouble to block them, in fact), so
| theoretically, the free Personal licenses should have
| been fine. No.
|
| Ok, so just have each Docker user pay that $5 themselves.
| How do we make sure every person who has Docker installed
| on their PC really _is_ paying for a license? Even if we
| gave them all corporate cards, and Docker was going to be
| cool with several hundred accounts (or more) from the
| same domain _not_ being on the "Business" plan, we then
| get to set up a process with Accounting to make sure the
| PC scans match the payments.
|
| This might all sound ridiculous to start-up/boutique
| employees, but is a basic fact of life in corporate IT...
| which Docker was hoping to get a lot of money out of.
| jiggawatts wrote:
| I love big enterprise, where ten people can have daily
| meetings for a month to decide how to pay a few hundred
| dollars.
|
| Yes, this happened to me. More than once.
|
| No, you can't just pull your wallet out and offer to pay
| for it yourself with cash. You're not an "approved
| supplier" and it's the supplier that needs to provide
| warranty support.
|
| Also if you pay for it yourself, then you're providing it
| as a "gift" and that could be construed as corruption --
| unless you're reimbursed, but it's above the threshold...
|
| This whole thread has given me flashbacks to that time when
| the project manager broke down in tears and put his credit
| card back in his wallet...
| isatty wrote:
| That's literally how it works in big corps and how it should
| work in general - company property should be paid for by the
| company, and the companies liability in case anything goes
| wrong.
|
| You should not be giving your $x (it does not matter that its
| only 5) to the company.
| hgsgm wrote:
| [flagged]
| solarkraft wrote:
| What's the workflow? What more is Docker Desktop than a way to
| get the Docker CLI on non-Linux machines?
| pnw wrote:
| I get invoices for my $5 Pro plan. Do you mean they wouldn't
| take the order on credit?
| InvaderFizz wrote:
| Probably means they would not do NET30 or the like terms to
| fit with their corporate purchasing workflow.
| pnw wrote:
| Pretty hard to get NET30 invoicing on a transaction which
| is less than $450, especially if you've chosen the monthly
| plan. It's just not worth the labor chasing an unpaid $450
| invoice every damn month.
| Volundr wrote:
| I assume they mean Docker issues an invoice which the
| company's AP department can then pay by either cutting a
| check or ACH transfer. At least that's what we had to get all
| our vendors to start doing when the company I worked for
| killed off corporate cards and quit letting employees expense
| things like this.
| tobyjsullivan wrote:
| I have many issues with Docker the business but, have to
| say, this situation sounds like they might not be the
| problem quite as much as the employer.
| strictnein wrote:
| On the other side of the spectrum, working somewhere that would
| have purchased thousands of licenses, they were equally unaware
| of what larger corporations want or need for such arrangements.
| MandieD wrote:
| They were so blinded by giant dollar/Euro signs when
| insisting that we take loads of those ~20/month licenses that
| included a lot of things that are _anti_ -features to most
| enterprises (we need to _prevent_ people from pulling
| /pushing to Docker Hub!) but left out things that would make
| it less miserable (SSO/SAML), that they couldn't see that
| absolutely no one was going to put five figures on their
| corporate card each month.
|
| I see that they now have those things, but it would have been
| very clever to have asked a few potential customers about
| these things ahead of time, and made sure they had them as
| soon as they stuck their hands out... or had a few ex-
| corporate types around to run this all by before telling us
| that we _will_ be buying Docker licenses within 120 days for
| everyone who happens to have Docker Desktop installed. At
| least they were savvy enough to realize that large companies
| couldn 't have begun to cope with much less notice, but as it
| was, the rough start with a looming deadline was enough
| motivation to get us trying alternatives right away.
| MandieD wrote:
| 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 internal registry out of the box, because we really don't
| want devs pulling stuff directly from Docker Hub without any
| sort of traceability, much less (shudder) _pushing_ anything
| there. The prospect of having to manage hundreds (or more) of
| user accounts with SSO "on the roadmap, pinky swear" pushed
| the math over the top.
|
| Many months later, this is still proving to have been a good
| call.
|
| Moral of the story: do not try to shove a category change on
| large corporations without having basic things large
| corporations routinely require in order to give you money,
| especially if replacing you requires a lot less spend on extra
| internal labor and material than you're demanding to be paid.
| mig39 wrote:
| We're sorry there was a backlash.
| ly3xqhl8g9 wrote:
| Two solutions that don't seem to be mentioned:
|
| 1. Let any user have how many "free teams" they want, but
| restrict the image size (under 1GB?) and/or downloads (under
| 1,000/month?). Maybe let the community vote for open source
| images exempt from this restriction.
|
| 2. Run a free link redirect service: user registers _my-team_ on
| hub.docker.com, links _my-team /my-image_ with their preferred
| registry _my-registry.com_ , client-side _docker pull my-team
| /my-image_ resolves automagically to _my-registry.com /my-
| team/my-image_.
| dpkirchner wrote:
| 3. Let paying teams sponsor free teams. Maybe allow multiple
| organizations to sponsor a single team. (The free team should
| be able to refuse sponsorship on a case by case basis)
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Faq does not include the most asked question: "Why the fuck are
| you still so bad at this?"
| mikesir87 wrote:
| (from the Docker DevRel team) Ha! Just had to say... this gave
| me a good laugh! We're trying to get better... I swear! Comms
| are hard. We'll get there.
| mellowyeller wrote:
| 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.'
| bobleeswagger wrote:
| > '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?
| foobarbecue wrote:
| > 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.
| bobleeswagger wrote:
| > 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 Docker not
| given the benefit of the doubt when they are already
| extending an olive branch...? This isn't Microsoft.
|
| I guess if you want to change things, you should shoot for
| a position in PR at docker. Otherwise, you look like a rube
| for acting as though they "could have done better with one
| sentence." I bet you're fun at parties.
| burnished wrote:
| How is that your read here? It feels completely arbitrary
| burnished wrote:
| 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 offense at.
| xp84 wrote:
| (Note: I'm neutral on the main issue of whether Docker's moves
| are evil, etc. I don't really care)
|
| To me this "This impacted less than x%" business is more of a
| classic Apple damage control PR statement, designed to convey
| to the whole userbase, "You almost definitely aren't affected,
| it's just a _tiny_ number of _whiners_ making all this fuss,
| and look how small _they_ are! "
| slantedview wrote:
| The "2% of our users" is indeed misleading since most users
| don't run organizations, and it's mainly orgs that were
| affected. A better metric would be what % of orgs were
| impacted.
| afarrell wrote:
| One of the difficulties of public relations is communicating to
| multiple audiences at once. One of Docker's audiences are the
| paying customers who outside that 2% and would want some
| assurance that if docker makes errors, those errors are smaller
| in magnitude. This statement seems like it is aimed at
| assuaging the worries of that audience. Is it good practice? I
| do not know.
| r00fus wrote:
| Can't they say something like "a small and important group",
| yada yada, etc. Just laying out the % alone is derisive and
| pointless.
| burnished wrote:
| Well, the end result would be some one else complaining
| about that phrasing being insulting, or a lack of
| transparency or something.
| dheera wrote:
| > One of the difficulties of public relations is
| communicating to multiple audiences at once.
|
| Why not just release multiple statements and links?
|
| "Click here for customized PR statement if you are a open
| source developer"
|
| "Click here for customized PR statement if you are a closed
| source developer"
|
| "Click here for customized PR statement if you are an
| executive who can't code"
|
| "Click here for customized PR statement if you are a
| billionaire who invested in Docker but secretly don't know
| what it is"
|
| etc.
| bleuchase wrote:
| Is that a serious suggestion? Who on earth would take the
| time to look through all of those to see which one best
| fits them? Companies have enough trouble getting press
| releases read already.
| hawski wrote:
| ChatGPT> Could you rephrase the PR statement to the ad
| profile of this HTTP client?
| hk__2 wrote:
| What if you are a "closed source developer" at work but an
| open-source one during your free time? What if you are a
| billionaire codes? What if... etc. You could make TL;DR's
| targeted at specific audiences, but you still need the same
| introduction for everyone.
| hgsgm wrote:
| There are 2 audiences: 1 with impact and 1 with 100% impact.
| The relative size of those audiences is irrelevant to the
| people in the audience.
| golem14 wrote:
| Also, the 2% of the impacted users might have 50% of _all_
| users as a dependency (just throwing out a random number for
| illustration), so I'm not sure that the "2% users" messaging
| matters to the recipients of that PR.
| tylersmith wrote:
| I think that was an attempt to describe that the change won't
| delete tons of projects like many believed, and break
| downstream users, not that it was too small of a group to care
| about.
| packetslave wrote:
| Ever wonder why Google outage notifications always say stuff
| like "this impacted 0.01752% of users"? Because if they leave
| that out, the PR department ends up flooded with questions from
| reporters about "how bad was this outage, exactly?", and less-
| diligent publications running "Google suffers massive outage"
| headlines.
| tyingq wrote:
| It's really misleading though, as it only reflect the owners
| of the images. Presumably I should count as an affected user
| if I don't own the image, but try to download it.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| I think that's what they're trying to say: you're not an
| affected user if it's not your image, because you can't
| download it in the first place.
| tyingq wrote:
| Meaning I can't download it because their account was
| zapped after the 30 days? I could certainly download it
| before all this.
| nmjohn wrote:
| Nope - public images are not affected - you never would
| have been able to download a relevant image if you
| weren't in the private org.
| tyingq wrote:
| I'm still confused. As I understood, for example,
| "httptookit" is one of the affected accounts.
|
| They have public images here:
| https://hub.docker.com/u/httptoolkit
|
| The original announcement said:
|
| > 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.
|
| That sounds a lot like the public images were subject to
| deletion. At the very least, subject to being frozen in
| time and not updated/updateable, which can be worse in
| some cases.
| [deleted]
| tyingq wrote:
| The most favorable percentage possible, probably. Rather than
| percentage of requests, percentage of active users, etc.
| abscind wrote:
| Agreed. It's frustrating to see companies try to downplay the
| impact of their mistakes by using statistics like "less than 2%
| of our users." Companies NEED to take responsibility for their
| actions and show genuine empathy for those affected, rather
| than trying to minimize the impact of their mistakes with vague
| statistics.
| femto113 wrote:
| 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.
| foxbee wrote:
| This is how i interpreted this. I feel this was a box ticking
| exercise with 0 emotion.
| phphphphp wrote:
| The 2% they're referring to are businesses that are using
| Docker's hosted services for free. The majority of the outrage
| was from people thinking about the non-business users, that is,
| open source projects, which Docker unintentionally implied
| would be impacted by this change. Docker are apologising for
| their poor communication which made people think this change
| applied to more than just a tiny portion of the user base (who
| are probably happy to pay). They're not apologising for the
| change.
| lozenge wrote:
| Anybody who uses "docker pull" or "FROM" and not pointing at
| their own hosting or their own paid Docker account was
| affected as evidenced by the thousands of comments worried
| about the impact.
| [deleted]
| SomeCallMeTim wrote:
| No. This was NEVER implied at all.
|
| This only ever applied to the *Team* accounts. I have a
| paid non-team/personal account, but I am also aware that I
| could have a free personal account if I didn't need private
| repositories.
|
| In other words, they weren't clear enough in their
| communication, which is what they're apologizing for.
|
| But the internet outrage mob is going to yell about the
| evil of The Man no matter what I say, so I don't know why I
| bother...
| madeofpalk wrote:
| Well, they say they were never actually affected
|
| > _We'd also like to clarify that public images will only
| be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to
| delete them._
|
| > _Will open source images I rely on get deleted?_
|
| > _Not by Docker. Public images will only disappear if the
| maintainer of the image decides to proactively delete it
| from Docker Hub. If the maintainer takes no action, we will
| continue to distribute their public images._
|
| People may have _thought_ they were affected, which is what
| they seem to be apoligising for.
| yencabulator wrote:
| They also are saying the maintainers will be unable to
| update the images after the 30 days. So the panic and
| bitching are perfectly deserved:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35188691
| SomeCallMeTim wrote:
| For TEAM accounts that aren't "Docker sponsored open
| source" teams.
|
| They should allow a TEAM->PERSONAL conversion for any
| open source account that doesn't qualify to be "Docker
| sponsored." But really this is a communications fail more
| than anything.
| fabian2k wrote:
| > Less than 2% of Docker users have a Free Team organization
| on their account.
|
| I don't think so. The quote above is what they say on that
| page, and I think that is a pretty useless metric. It affects
| 2% of all Docker Hub users, 100% of all Free Team users.
| perbu wrote:
| I'm guessing this sentence is aimed at current and future
| investors.
| floatinglotus wrote:
| Is it even possible that there will be future investors?
| jacooper wrote:
| GHCR goes brrrrrrrrrr...... Also quay.io is free for public
| repos.
| system16 wrote:
| It's almost becoming a cliche for companies to release damage
| control follow-ups like this after they pull a bait and switch.
|
| It's always "we're sorry that we didn't _communicate_ our bait
| and switch effectively ". Not we're sorry that we pulled a bait
| and switch. We're sorry you _didn 't understand_ the value in
| this bait and switch. It's your fault, actually. But we're sorry
| you're angry. Now stop giving us negative attention.
| exac wrote:
| This speaks to the product culture at Docker. They are unable
| to admit they are changing direction after negative customer
| feedback, so they are pretending this was always their plan,
| and shifting the blame to their customers.
|
| It is similar to pseudo-blameless engineering cultures, where
| engineers won't admit to bugs, or update the status indicator,
| least they face the shame of writing a post mortem, or having
| it brought up in their performance review.
| AbraKdabra wrote:
| We're deeply sorry https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=15HTd4Um1m4.
| dheera wrote:
| The forces of capitalism reward this, it will continue to
| happen as long as we pick pure capitalism as a system, and keep
| assigning values to companies purely on financials with no
| consideration toward their ability to empathize and
| communicate.
| vlunkr wrote:
| This feels like a win for capitalism to me. The actually
| innovative Docker did is open source, and replacements
| already exist for DockerHub. So, we get the good tech they
| created, and the company with the user-hostile choices dies,
| or becomes irrelevant.
| wizzwizz4 wrote:
| There's no such thing as "pure capitalism" - not if you're
| talking about things that exist.
|
| In an ideal free market with perfectly-rational omniscient
| actors, this issue wouldn't occur. I don't think you even
| need the omniscience: trust, memory, reputation/vouching and
| basic game theory should be sufficient (though I haven't
| proven this). Alternatively: a free market with contracts,
| where _all things_ go through the system, would work.
|
| In the real world, the system consists of people, each of
| whom is optimising for a particular thing. Very few people
| are optimising for "make the most money, at the expense of
| all else". Show me anyone (even a billionaire), and I'll show
| you somebody who values other things higher than the
| accumulation of money. And plenty of things don't go through
| "the system of capitalism": we have commons, and volunteers,
| and favours, and coerced unpaid labour / wage theft.
|
| "The forces of capitalism" might be a good shorthand for the
| reasons behind this problem, but it's not strictly an
| accurate one: _these_ issues aren 't inherent to capitalism.
| They're not problems with capitalism, but problems with _this
| system_. (Capitalism does have other, different problems that
| are pretty baked in, like how capital is power and power lets
| you accrue capital, but I don 't see how that relates to this
| issue.)
| [deleted]
| jeron wrote:
| Ah, but there's no such thing as negative press. Look how many
| people are talking about Docker now!!
| irrational wrote:
| On our team we are mainly talking about how will we divest of
| Docker.
| user3939382 wrote:
| > No such thing as negative press
|
| Tell that to Silicon Valley Bank after that WSJ article that
| started the run lol
| slantedview wrote:
| This is somewhat an extension of modern politics, which is
| largely seen by political professionals as a problem of
| "messaging", where policy details are secondary to how people
| can be persuaded to think about those policies.
| slantedview wrote:
| This isn't a good clarification. While Docker says they will not
| delete images, it doesn't clarify whether they will delete
| organizations. Indeed, under "Can someone else squat my
| namespace?", it says "if your organization is suspended, deleted,
| or you choose to leave Docker voluntarily", which implies that
| orgs may also be deleted involuntarily. This is still a problem.
| eyeareque wrote:
| I'm guessing they did this change because the cost of giving a
| free service isn't cheap for docker?
| ericb wrote:
| It seems the concept of a loss leader is "lost" on Docker.
|
| Some MBA with a spreadsheet at Docker hasn't realized that
| where the upstream OSS goes, the rest follow.
| renewiltord wrote:
| They've historically had trouble having that loss leader lead
| to a non-loss.
| ericb wrote:
| A lot of folks have missed the updates--they are now past
| 100 million in annual recurring revenue--that history has
| evolved.
| sleepybrett wrote:
| Loss leader for products that don't sell? The change to a
| full open source toolchain for their core products was more
| or less painless.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| The problem runs much deeper than that. Most of what Docker
| offers is commodity software. You can get docker image hosting
| from a variety of sources and hosting your own registry isn't
| that hard. All you need is a docker container and some file
| storage or bucket. Docker for desktop is nice but there are
| free alternatives.
|
| Docker registries are included with most cloud services (AWS,
| Azure, Gcloud, digital ocean) and you can use those to self
| host as well without too much issues. Github and gitlab offer
| docker registries as well. As do lots of other companies.
| Mostly, those services make money from other things than
| hosting docker images. That's just a low value commodity that
| they need to offer the really interesting stuff. If you are
| going to charge people for some expensive kubernetes cluster,
| they need a place to dump their container images. So you offer
| that for free. It's just a few GB of storage. It literally is a
| rounding error on the total bill. It does not matter. Charging
| for that does not make sense.
|
| That's the problem docker has right now: they need companies to
| pay them absurd amounts of money for something that is
| essentially a low value commodity and they don't really have
| anything with a lot of value that they could charge for
| instead. And the harder they insist people need to pay, the
| more they erode their position as a leader in this space (which
| arguably they lost years ago). While it was free and
| convenient, people used them. But now that that's no longer the
| case, people engineer around them. They are throwing the baby
| out with the bathwater. The one asset they still had (people
| treating them as the de-facto place to park docker containers)
| is basically being lost. And as soon as that stops, it's going
| to get harder for them to gain new customers or even retain
| existing ones.
|
| Contrast that with Github that used to charge for stuff that
| they now give away for free. I paid for it back in the day. And
| now I don't. Except Github is making loads of money from
| companies that outgrow the freemium tier. And they have a
| steady supply of happy freemium users using their services for
| free transitioning to valuable paid services. And they get to
| host the entirety (well close to it) of the software developer
| population on this planet. It's the largest professional
| network outside of linkedin. Which of course MS also owns. It
| would be madness to incentivize users to not use that by
| charging for it. It's way too valuable for that.
|
| Speaking of MS, they should just buy out Docker. Fire the
| management. Get rid of their sales department and revitalize
| docker and dockerhub development and integrate it into github.
| It's so complementary to Github that it's a no-brainer. And
| probably investors are getting fed up with the way things are
| going at docker. I imagine this could be a relatively cheap
| acquisition for them. This isn't OpenAI, LinkedIn, or Github.
| maerF0x0 wrote:
| Only fair that this also gets 1500 points and front page
| threeseed wrote:
| Not sure how this changes anything.
|
| Their open source program [1] only grants a free 1-year Docker
| Team subscription. After which time the whole system is unusable.
| And most of those features aren't what open source teams even
| need which is surely just basic multi-user access.
|
| They really should have just tightened the entry criteria for
| their open source offering if they were so concerned about it
| being misused.
|
| https://www.docker.com/blog/docker-sponsored-open-source-pro...
| beached_whale wrote:
| I think I read that it prohibits making money, like consulting
| on the OSS product. This prohibits a lot of OSS teams.
| mikesir87 wrote:
| (Docker DevRel team here) For clarification, the program grants
| one year of access, but is indefinitely renewable as long as
| the program is still compliant with current criteria.
| zamnos wrote:
| Thank you for the clarification. For reference, are there any
| open source projects you've seen that suddenly change course
| to being paid products and would lose open source status
| according to Docker? Any Linux distros that suddenly went
| closed source? Are there any sort of general public licenses
| that might preclude projects from even doing so?
| quijoteuniv wrote:
| Too little, too late, everyone i know is looking for ways of
| leaving docker for good. This last announcement just cemented
| the lack of confidence in the platform. As someone put it to me
| recently:>> a bunch of execs trying to squeeze out a dying
| platform for a bonus before moving to another money sqeezing
| project.>> At work we made the plan to leave today.
| tofuahdude wrote:
| Given the number of times that Docker the company has rugged the
| community, I am highly pessimistic of their organization / paying
| them. I'd rather run my own registry.
| lozenge wrote:
| Not much has changed then.
|
| If you don't meet the strict criteria of the Open Source Program,
| for example you are a for profit company publishing an open
| source image, you can't upload new versions of your public
| images. Your images are one CVE away from becoming useless.
|
| If you do meet the criteria, they will build images for you. No
| way to have your own build process. All artifacts are made
| public.
| computronus wrote:
| Reading carefully about image deletion:
|
| * "public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their
| maintainer decides to delete them"
|
| * "Public images will only disappear if the maintainer of the
| image decides to proactively delete it from Docker Hub. If the
| maintainer takes no action, we will continue to distribute their
| public images."
|
| This sounds good, but it would be better to explicitly say "if
| you opt to let your free organization be suspended, Docker Hub
| will continue distributing your public images indefinitely
| anyway". It feels like there's a loophole here where if a public
| image comes to have no maintainer - because they abandoned its
| organization - then it no longer benefits from this assurance.
| That seems unlikely, but given how this change has been going so
| far, it's tough to give Docker the benefit of the doubt.
| kundi wrote:
| What if the 0.1% of the users are the ones that you should deeply
| care for?
| nielsole wrote:
| 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 communications failed to make
| this clear.
|
| Given these statements directly contradict each other I am a bit
| surprised this is called clarification. It feels like they
| changed the actual strategy, not just the communication around
| it.
| mmcnl wrote:
| You are right, it's two different messages.
|
| I always am annoyed by how companies apologize for the
| communication or the confusion arising after the communication.
| As if we, the public, didn't understand properly or are too
| dumb to understand what they tried to say. We understood
| perfectly and the _message_ was dumb, not the communication
| around the message. It doesn't feel like an honest apology.
| saurik wrote:
| Dude: "the message" _is_ "the communication".
| [deleted]
| tyingq wrote:
| Both sound like "you won't be able to update them", so images
| sort of permanently squatted and growing tech debt, potentially
| vulnerabilities, etc. They should really allow for configuring
| the ":latest" tag to raise a 404 or something if this is what
| all that means.
| mikesir87 wrote:
| (from Docker DevRel team)
|
| > Given these statements directly contradict each other
|
| Actually... they aren't contradictory. The organization data
| will be retained for 30 days and is subject to deletion. That
| data includes the teams, memberships, etc. But, it wasn't clear
| what we were going to do about the images. Keeping the public
| images is important as many other images build on top of them.
|
| > It feels like they changed the actual strategy
|
| We recognize it might feel that way, so apologies. But, that's
| part of where we are recognize it wasn't clear the technical
| details... we didn't talk at all about the images. After the
| feedback, we recognized this, so wanted to make that clear.
| [deleted]
| vertis wrote:
| Deleting 'organization data' absolutely read that they would
| delete everything. Changing direction and back pedaling with
| a non-apology is borderline insulting.
|
| I understand the need to make money as a company, but it
| really is biting the hand that fed messing with open source
| maintainers
| nikolay wrote:
| They really think we're idiots!
| brianwawok wrote:
| Marketing people try to explain away mistakes with
| doublespeak. Isn't it grand? They keep digging deeper at
| this point.
| bombcar wrote:
| We have learned that public images are NOT organization
| data!
| golem14 wrote:
| With the organization data gone, will there be a way to
| update the retained images, like security fixes etc? If
| not, then this could become very dangerous.
| pgwhalen wrote:
| I have no horse in this race, but fwiw, I can see how this
| mistake would be made honestly. Organization data could be
| easily refer to just the metadata of the organization, and
| depending on how the product is structured[1], could feel
| quite different from public images.
|
| [1] Disclaimer: I don't know how the product is structured.
| sacrosancty wrote:
| [dead]
| bragr wrote:
| >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.
| chasil wrote:
| It is important to understand that most corporations do not
| apologize, _ever_ , unless there is a direct threat to cash
| flow.
|
| This behavior is now demonstrated, it is the desired
| relationship, and it _will_ be the baseline, all
| protestations aside.
|
| The apology is meaningless. If this is not what you want,
| then take steps to limit the damage done to you, and do it
| now.
| travisjungroth wrote:
| Yeah, really weird that after an apology announcement
| they're still defending the original message at all. Not
| too hard to say "Yes, those messages contradict each other.
| The first one did not communicate our actual plan. The
| second message is a correction and clarification."
| xboxnolifes wrote:
| That's.... why they are saying it was poor communication.
| throwwwaway69 wrote:
| They did in the OP link. To say now in comments "It's not
| contradictory" is not owning up to it being bad
| communication
| hgsgm wrote:
| Can the images be updated after the organizational data is
| gone? If not, is there a security concern, since vulns are
| likely to be discovery in future?
| patmcc wrote:
| >>>During that period you will maintain access to any of your
| public images.
|
| What did this mean in that case? That the images will
| continue to exist but the maintainers cannot update them?
| They'll just become orphaned?
| mikesir87 wrote:
| (from the Docker DevRel team)
|
| "During that period" refers to the 30-day period. During
| that time, the images are accessible. After the 30-day
| period, they will still be pull-able, but not able to be
| updated.
| yencabulator wrote:
| So, any public image where the maintainer doesn't jump
| through hoops gets frozen in time, unable to be updated,
| and starts accumulating CVEs? This sounds worse than
| deleting the image.
|
| Any smart FOSS maintainer will find alternate hosting...
| setr wrote:
| > Any smart FOSS maintainer will find alternate
| hosting...
|
| I think that's obviously the point of the whole exercise
| -- pony up or leave. They're just doing it in an annoying
| manner
| ok_dad wrote:
| > 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 literally everyone else
| on HN had, was that _after_ that time you will _lose
| access_ to images in your public repositories; access
| meaning "we can get to the image" in this context,
| because that's what people f-n care about.
|
| Not to mention the other part, about how Docker will
| still have images available for pull that can't be
| changed, for which there is no way to "forward" user
| pulls elsewhere if the developer chose to not pay the
| fee; so in affect you're capturing their user base with
| old software and almost no way to know that.
|
| "DevRel" at Docker failed this week. Just own up to it,
| take the hit, and don't be evasive. Evasiveness is shady
| and no one trusts that bullshit.
| saurik wrote:
| Yeah!! We should really demand they provide a public
| apology for doing such a terrible job with how they
| communicated and executed this... oh, wait: _that 's what
| they did_ :eyeroll:. Can you stop with the witch hunt? If
| you want to hate on Docker there are too many actually-
| legitimate reasons to waste time trying to claim that
| this apology is somehow "evasive".
| ok_dad wrote:
| 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.
| bragr wrote:
| >accessible
|
| >pull-able
|
| To any reasonable average person, these mean the same
| thing.
| terom wrote:
| This is an important implication that needs to be brought
| up in the FAQ explicitly.
|
| In other words, the public repos are being archived. If I
| was a maintainer responsible for providing up-to-date and
| secure images, then I think it would indeed by my duty to
| delete them, if I am no longer able to update them.
| [deleted]
| HDThoreaun wrote:
| Communication isn't about you meant, it's about what the
| person you're communicating to thought you meant.
| terom wrote:
| 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
| okay for specific image references, but questionable for
| specific image tags and somewhat irresponsible for the
| `latest` tag. A `latest` tag that cannot be updated is ...
| worse than no `latest` tag.
|
| Responsible maintainers that are unable to apply for open-
| source status or otherwise sponsor their usage of
| organization public repos should be advised to delete their
| public repos.
|
| Responsible users of public images on Docker Hub need to have
| a way to determine which images will be affected, and which
| will continue to be maintained. Archiving the public repos
| gives an extended grace period, but users will still need to
| be prepared to notice if they end up using a now
| unmaintained, archived repo and migrate to alternative image
| sources.
|
| [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35188691
| sleepytimetea wrote:
| 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.
| sitzkrieg wrote:
| 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
| Kwpolska wrote:
| Nah, Docker/containers are here to stay. But Docker, Inc.
| isn't.
| themitigating wrote:
| If you run a company wouldn't it be cheaper to just pay. This
| can't be worth the trouble changing everything
| hgsgm wrote:
| Please share a copy of that email.
| Symbiote wrote:
| Docker is sunsetting Free Team organizations
|
| Free Team organizations are a legacy subscription tier that
| no longer exists. This tier included many of the same
| features, rates, and functionality as a paid Docker Team
| subscription.
|
| After reviewing the list of accounts that are members of
| legacy Free Team organizations, we've identified yours as
| potentially being one of them.
|
| If you own a legacy Free Team organization, access to paid
| features -- including private repositories -- will be
| suspended on April 14, 2023 (11:59 pm UTC). Upgrade your
| subscription before April 14, 2023 to continue accessing
| your organization.
|
| 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. At any point during the
| 30-day period, you can restore access to your organization
| account if you upgrade to a paid subscription. Visit our
| FAQ [1] for more information.
|
| [1] https://web.docker.com/rs/790-SSB-375/images/privaterep
| osfaq...
| saurik wrote:
| This is the exact quote that was already up-thread of
| here, and they absolutely are not claiming they "never
| said that"; instead, they are clarifying that
| "organization data" does not include "public images", and
| while that's confusing, I can appreciate why they didn't
| think it would be and--lo and behold--they are publicly
| apologizing for being so confusing and taking the hit for
| having done so.
| mekster wrote:
| With what?
| mort96 wrote:
| Podman is pretty good, and more or less a drop-in
| replacement.
| gpm wrote:
| Someone on lobste.rs mentioned quay.io (maintained by
| redhat) as an alternative to dockerhub. Anyone have any
| experience with it?
| sofixa wrote:
| It started as a CoreOS project and for a long time it was
| the only ebterprisey registry, and it included security
| scanning. Had some availability issues some time ago, but
| AFAIK today it's pretty good.
| bravetraveler wrote:
| The software is nice, if looking to run your own - I'd
| recommend it over the typical Docker-provided incantation
|
| Way more enterprise appropriate, for example - granular
| control on caches
| notbuyingit wrote:
| If you want actual reproducable, actual portable software,
| Nix. Otherwise there are countless other OCI runtimes,
| cri-o, containers, etc. Kubernetes doesn't even use Docker.
|
| What a thing, docker. I can't get over the staying power it
| has had despite... Everything.
| mekster wrote:
| How do I run the ecosystem the docker already has with
| nix alone?
|
| It's not just the runtime.
| [deleted]
| incangold wrote:
| Reminds me of the gaslighting of the D&D community recently
| around changes to the license there.
|
| It's like watching a five year old who's convinced he can fool
| his parents.
| pizzaknife wrote:
| sorry what d&d license change?
| ekidd wrote:
| WotC tried to retroactively revoke an open gaming license
| that had been in widespread use since 2002. They had a
| legal theory why they could do this, but that theory
| contradicted quite a few public statements they had made on
| record. IP lawyers had very mixed opinions.
|
| Many TT-RPG players enjoy reading rules carefully and
| figuring out fun ways to "exploit" them. So everyone jumped
| on WotC's changes and dissected the implications. And many
| companies in the larger ecosystem quickly announced plans
| to ship their own games competing with D&D.
|
| WotC decided to back down and to just use Creative Commons,
| which largely resolved the immediate issue.
| djha-skin wrote:
| _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.
| worksonmine wrote:
| 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 repositories can they be sure the
| software they rely on can keep publishing containers?
|
| Even at the tiny startups I've worked on I'm asked to
| proofread any technical stuff they want to publish, I assume
| Docker does too.
| hgsgm wrote:
| People who are busy working aren't going to rush to HN to
| post about how they understood the announcement and are
| reacting as needed.
|
| People who are bored (like me) will post rants and
| accusations.
| gilrain wrote:
| [flagged]
| dang wrote:
| Maybe so, but please don't post unsubstantive comments to
| Hacker News.
| actually_a_dog wrote:
| [flagged]
| LASR wrote:
| Organizational gaslighting?
|
| I personally hate the term "gaslighting", but it could be apt
| here.
| eternalban wrote:
| That depends on what "organization data" means. Does that
| phrasing cover the images or just the existence of the
| organization in Docker (i.e. deleted organization)?
| gpm wrote:
| > During that period you will maintain access to any of your
| public images.
|
| Pretty unambiguously means "after that period you may not
| have access to any of your public images".
| eternalban wrote:
| Isn't that like a service like Github saying 'you will
| maintain access to any of your public projects' as in
| _administrative access to one 's own projects_. After that
| period, you are no longer the owner of that repo and you no
| longer have "access". So I can still clone your github
| project but alas you no longer can commit to it.
|
| https://docs.docker.com/docker-hub/orgs/
|
| https://hub.docker.com/orgs
| wholinator2 wrote:
| Doesn't sound like it to me. If they meant
| "administrative access" they should have said
| "administrative access". They didn't, they just said
| "access" which unambiguously means just "access".
| Would've been very easy for them to make a one word
| correction somewhere in the dozen or so people who should
| have read this before it went out. But they didn't, they
| just said "access". If they wanted unambiguous meaning,
| they could have easily just said what they meant.
|
| Methinks that's exactly what they did
| eternalban wrote:
| Well, methinks otherwise. Lack of access does not mean
| files deleted. Organization data deleted means account
| deleted. Contention here was the claim that they have
| done a uturn but they _never_ said they will delete
| images. This entire somewhat useless thread is about
| whether lack of access actually meant images deleted.
| (Administrative is a word that I used in my comment and a
| red herring to pick on, quite frankly.)
| gardenhedge wrote:
| "We'd also like to clarify that public images will only be
| removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete
| them."
|
| Was HN spreading fake news then?
| PhysicalNomad wrote:
| I stopped using Docker entirely after the Moby mess, when Podman
| came around without needing a daemon, and better runtimes became
| available for Kubernetes. It's been the inferior product for a
| long time, only kept alive by the dev mindshare they gained early
| on.
| oofbey wrote:
| It's synonymous with "containers" for a lot of people. I know a
| lot of groups that use docker to build containers and other
| infra to run them.
|
| Too bad the company screwed up turning their technology into a
| real business, or taking a graceful massive exit when they had
| the chance. Their VC's doubtless pushed them towards an IPO
| when they didn't really have a solid revenue plan.
|
| Once they started nagging / forcing / tricking people into
| paying for what they had offered for free, they company was
| doomed. The "+WASM" branding all over their website reeks the
| sad desperation of a has-been coulda-been. Sorry folks, you
| built cool and important technology, but that's not good enough
| if you're greedy.
| sys_64738 wrote:
| Stupid is as Stupid does.
| solarkraft wrote:
| It's cool that you're not completely deaf, but the damage has
| been done and not only due to this announcement. There are
| alternatives and people are increasingly choosing them.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-03-16 23:00 UTC)