7 ms·

People asked for the feature. The company gave a reasonable explanation of why they didn’t want to do it—-that it would increase the burden on them. As a very r

People asked for the feature. The company gave a reasonable explanation of why they didn’t want to do it—-that it would increase the burden on them. As a very reasonable compromise they coded up the feature and are offering it to actual customers. That way they can offset the extra burden with money, again from actual customers. Nothing about this is unreasonable except the massively entitled whining. This should be cross posted to r/BeggingChoosers.

sarsway 6y ago
Sure it's in their right to do, and we can't expect to get everything for free, but making "skip update" a paid feature? How tasteless is that, do we really want to defend that? You see that button as a free user and its a bit of a slap in the face, isn't it. It doesn't make me want to pay, it makes me think the company is completely out of touch. I'd rather uninstall and look for alternatives, then pay for skip updates.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  > it makes me think the company is completely out of touch As interest rates come up off the zero bound companies are increasingly going to have to learn how to make profits again. The culture this is out of touch with is not long for this world.
ratww 6y ago
This is not a feature, though, especially not a new one. This is just asking for payment for the software to not do something to your machine. This kind of behaviour so far was only present in ransomware. All the code required for this to work was already there. They only spent developer time changing it to only be available to Pro users. You can rationalise this all you want, but this is just hostile, desperate and lazy behaviour from a company that's too desperate to make money, but is has continuously proven to be unable to come up with better ideas for attracting paid users. As others have mentioned, they got millions in funding so far but still have no idea how to make money. Had it been announced a month earlier people would be sure it was an April Fool's joke.
- pjc50 6y ago
  I call this class of thing "antifeatures". Vendor bloatware tends to be made of them.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  So uninstall it. On your way out the door, do the decent thing and thank the people that have been providing you free stuff all this time. Geez.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - waheoo 6y ago
    It's not free, its open source. They decided to build a company on the backs of a community that is more conducive to open source than closed source. They got theirs. There wasn't anything free about it. They are the ones that fucked up and failed to build a successful business around an immensely popular tool. This hostile behaviour towards a community that gave them everything is disgusting. Companies ignoring social responsibility is pretty bad, but people white knighting dark patterns is so much worse. This shitty behavior is so typical of docker. Their GitHub repos are absolutely full of shitty responses to the communities needs. Their poor behavior and failure to work with enterprise is what resulted in k8s, rkt, and everything in between.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - Operyl 6y ago
      As much as I think this entire thing is silly, let’s set one fact straight: Docker Desktop is not open source.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - 6y ago
ljm 6y ago
I don't see it that way. The team has released new versions with major issues on a fairly regular basis, and this was exacerbated by having a forced auto-update that could only be resolved by dropping down to v2.5. So they pushed people to an older, stable version they didn't want to support. To my mind, the decision here shouldn't have been to make people pay protection money to stop a new release breaking their setup. They could make the whole damn thing paid-for instead and I'd be happier with that. There is clearly something missing in their development and QA process that causes this auto-updating to be so visible and painful. They could have kept the feature as-is and worked on making sure new releases were solid, while also having a mechanism to revert. I have no problem with my browser updating itself that way, as I never notice if something broken and got rolled back in the canary stage. To be honest, avoiding criticism by whining about entitlement adds no more to the conversation than pure entitlement itself. I can't see any purpose it serves other than to start a flame war.
ericol 6y ago
People didn't "ask for this feature". People asked for the feature to be disabled. There was a lengthy discussion in GH [0] aptly named "Please don't upgrade docker without asking first" few months back regarding why this shouldn't happen (auto updates, that is). Considering that the team that codes the software acknowledged they screwed up [1] having to pay for this I have to agree with the comment that says this amounts to ransomware. "Pay us or risk getting f*ked up by our updates". [0] https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183 https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183 [1] https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183#issuecomment-748855900 https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183#issuecomment-74...
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Ransomware holds your pictures, documents, data hostage unless you pay money. Nothing you paid for or created is being held hostage here. The solution to your problem is entirely in your hands, just hit that uninstall button.
  - VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
    omg I feel like a freaking alien right now. What are these people talking about
    - ericol 6y ago
      Well, it's a slow Sunday. How's yours going? I don't mind explaining something in more detail, just let me know what.
  - ericol 6y ago
    I didn't meant that literally. > The solution to your problem is entirely in your hands, just hit that uninstall button Well, you might be correct here, but still having automatic updates as a paid feature seems a bit excessive. Applying your logic, having to paid for such a basic feature is madness. Don't forget people found out about this in the worst case possible. Imaging starting to use the app, then they introduce a breaking change and when you go researching you find out that you have to pay for avoiding breaking updates.
wildrhythms 6y ago
I don't understand- people aren't asking for Docker desktop developers to support old versions of its software in perpetuity; people are asking to forego an auto-update at their own risk. What burden do you think this places on the Docker desktop developers exactly?
- skeeter2020 6y ago
  That's how I understood it. It would be very entitled to say "Don't force me to update and support my old version until I'm ready". This move seems like the opposite of what we all expect: There's a new version, the one you are on is EOL, upgrade or beware. What was wrong with this, other than it didn't support their revenue goals?
  - cyberge99 6y ago
    They’re bot saying update OR beware. They’re saying update OR your program is dead.
- anonymousab 6y ago
  There is a popular modern form of thought that developers should be the ones to decide which versions of their software are running sheets anywhere and what versions they are; that they are entitled to that level of control, and should exercise it because their users cannot be trusted to make an informed decision about running outdated and insecure software. I think it's paternalistic and egotistical but the usual counterpoint is grandma getting a virus because Windows is unknowingly out of date. With developer tooling that holds a bit less water IMO.
syllogism 6y ago
They didn't just put out Docker with a sign up that said "free stuff" though. They actively solicited the users; they told the community "Hey, use our software, you can trust us". If you do that you do have an obligation. It's like, if you beg your friend to let you give them a lift and don't show up, you can't turn around and call them a "choosey beggar" because the lift was supposed to be free. The response in that thread isn't _remotely_ reasonable, of course you can't make a developer tool like this auto-update.
- cutemonster 6y ago
  Or give away free tree planks to build houses, but then later you say now everyone has to pay for the planks, or you'll magically change the planks to an a bit weaker kind of tree.
spamalot159 6y ago
After reading your comment I think I agree with you. Most software nowadays requires you to update if you want it to keep working. You cannot play an online videogame without updating to the latest version. There is typically no way to use a previuse version of a website or web app. We have gotten more entitled and now when we see something that doesn't exactly meet our liking then we cry about it.

sarsway 6y ago

Sure it's in their right to do, and we can't expect to get everything for free, but making "skip update" a paid feature? How tasteless is that, do we really want to defend that? You see that button as a free user and its a bit of a slap in the face, isn't it. It doesn't make me want to pay, it makes me think the company is completely out of touch. I'd rather uninstall and look for alternatives, then pay for skip updates.

bradleyjg 6y ago
> it makes me think the company is completely out of touch As interest rates come up off the zero bound companies are increasingly going to have to learn how to make profits again. The culture this is out of touch with is not long for this world.

ratww 6y ago

This is not a feature, though, especially not a new one. This is just asking for payment for the software to not do something to your machine. This kind of behaviour so far was only present in ransomware. All the code required for this to work was already there. They only spent developer time changing it to only be available to Pro users. You can rationalise this all you want, but this is just hostile, desperate and lazy behaviour from a company that's too desperate to make money, but is has continuously proven to be unable to come up with better ideas for attracting paid users. As others have mentioned, they got millions in funding so far but still have no idea how to make money. Had it been announced a month earlier people would be sure it was an April Fool's joke.

pjc50 6y ago
I call this class of thing "antifeatures". Vendor bloatware tends to be made of them.
bradleyjg 6y ago
So uninstall it. On your way out the door, do the decent thing and thank the people that have been providing you free stuff all this time. Geez.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- waheoo 6y ago
  It's not free, its open source. They decided to build a company on the backs of a community that is more conducive to open source than closed source. They got theirs. There wasn't anything free about it. They are the ones that fucked up and failed to build a successful business around an immensely popular tool. This hostile behaviour towards a community that gave them everything is disgusting. Companies ignoring social responsibility is pretty bad, but people white knighting dark patterns is so much worse. This shitty behavior is so typical of docker. Their GitHub repos are absolutely full of shitty responses to the communities needs. Their poor behavior and failure to work with enterprise is what resulted in k8s, rkt, and everything in between.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Operyl 6y ago
    As much as I think this entire thing is silly, let’s set one fact straight: Docker Desktop is not open source.
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - 6y ago

ljm 6y ago

I don't see it that way. The team has released new versions with major issues on a fairly regular basis, and this was exacerbated by having a forced auto-update that could only be resolved by dropping down to v2.5. So they pushed people to an older, stable version they didn't want to support. To my mind, the decision here shouldn't have been to make people pay protection money to stop a new release breaking their setup. They could make the whole damn thing paid-for instead and I'd be happier with that. There is clearly something missing in their development and QA process that causes this auto-updating to be so visible and painful. They could have kept the feature as-is and worked on making sure new releases were solid, while also having a mechanism to revert. I have no problem with my browser updating itself that way, as I never notice if something broken and got rolled back in the canary stage. To be honest, avoiding criticism by whining about entitlement adds no more to the conversation than pure entitlement itself. I can't see any purpose it serves other than to start a flame war.

ericol 6y ago

People didn't "ask for this feature". People asked for the feature to be disabled. There was a lengthy discussion in GH [0] aptly named "Please don't upgrade docker without asking first" few months back regarding why this shouldn't happen (auto updates, that is). Considering that the team that codes the software acknowledged they screwed up [1] having to pay for this I have to agree with the comment that says this amounts to ransomware. "Pay us or risk getting f*ked up by our updates". [0] https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183 https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183 [1] https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183#issuecomment-748855900 https://github.com/docker/roadmap/issues/183#issuecomment-74...

bradleyjg 6y ago
Ransomware holds your pictures, documents, data hostage unless you pay money. Nothing you paid for or created is being held hostage here. The solution to your problem is entirely in your hands, just hit that uninstall button.
- VWWHFSfQ 6y ago
  omg I feel like a freaking alien right now. What are these people talking about
  - ericol 6y ago
    Well, it's a slow Sunday. How's yours going? I don't mind explaining something in more detail, just let me know what.
- ericol 6y ago
  I didn't meant that literally. > The solution to your problem is entirely in your hands, just hit that uninstall button Well, you might be correct here, but still having automatic updates as a paid feature seems a bit excessive. Applying your logic, having to paid for such a basic feature is madness. Don't forget people found out about this in the worst case possible. Imaging starting to use the app, then they introduce a breaking change and when you go researching you find out that you have to pay for avoiding breaking updates.

wildrhythms 6y ago

I don't understand- people aren't asking for Docker desktop developers to support old versions of its software in perpetuity; people are asking to forego an auto-update at their own risk. What burden do you think this places on the Docker desktop developers exactly?

skeeter2020 6y ago
That's how I understood it. It would be very entitled to say "Don't force me to update and support my old version until I'm ready". This move seems like the opposite of what we all expect: There's a new version, the one you are on is EOL, upgrade or beware. What was wrong with this, other than it didn't support their revenue goals?
- cyberge99 6y ago
  They’re bot saying update OR beware. They’re saying update OR your program is dead.
anonymousab 6y ago
There is a popular modern form of thought that developers should be the ones to decide which versions of their software are running sheets anywhere and what versions they are; that they are entitled to that level of control, and should exercise it because their users cannot be trusted to make an informed decision about running outdated and insecure software. I think it's paternalistic and egotistical but the usual counterpoint is grandma getting a virus because Windows is unknowingly out of date. With developer tooling that holds a bit less water IMO.

syllogism 6y ago

They didn't just put out Docker with a sign up that said "free stuff" though. They actively solicited the users; they told the community "Hey, use our software, you can trust us". If you do that you do have an obligation. It's like, if you beg your friend to let you give them a lift and don't show up, you can't turn around and call them a "choosey beggar" because the lift was supposed to be free. The response in that thread isn't _remotely_ reasonable, of course you can't make a developer tool like this auto-update.

cutemonster 6y ago
Or give away free tree planks to build houses, but then later you say now everyone has to pay for the planks, or you'll magically change the planks to an a bit weaker kind of tree.

spamalot159 6y ago

After reading your comment I think I agree with you. Most software nowadays requires you to update if you want it to keep working. You cannot play an online videogame without updating to the latest version. There is typically no way to use a previuse version of a website or web app. We have gotten more entitled and now when we see something that doesn't exactly meet our liking then we cry about it.