6 ms·

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 beha

by 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]
    - hda111 6y ago
      I suspect Docker-ce to be going closed source as well. They deprecated the repo docker-ce so you can only think what happens next.
  - bradleyjg 6y ago
    Who is this “community” exactly? Is it you? Did you write the software they built theirs on top of? If not, who appointed you spokesperson? Did you get an email from Linus saying—-“Hey, I’m really busy. Mind trash talking docker for me?” Claiming you are part of community doesn’t justify a massive sense of entitlement about software you didn’t pay for and didn’t contribute to.
- closeparen 6y ago
  Alice gives Bob free stuff, therefore Alice is entitled to kick in Bob’s door at 3am, take back the free stuff, and replace it with something else? And Bob must be grateful to Alice for this?
fnord77 6y ago
I bet they didn't check with the FTC before doing this.
xvector 6y ago
No one is making you run Docker Desktop. It is not holding you hostage. There are alternatives in this very thread. Comparing it to ransomware is absurd.
- aflag 6y ago
  Fair enough, ransomware is certainly an exaggeration, but the absurdity of it comes from the fact that not upgrading it just means they don’t do anything, whereas they are actively doing something and asking for money not to. Usually, people pay money to other people to solve their problems, in this case the same people asking for money to solve the problem are the people creating the problem in the first place.
- kordlessagain 6y ago
  Docker even uninstalled itself from my computer!
- salawat 6y ago
  No it isn't, not the way in whch the comparison was made. Previously, ransomware (and some games/media) were tge only software products that asked for a higher price tag to not install extra code the user did not want on their machine. It is a fundamentally predatory practice, because the developers completely misunderstand consent. Just because I have some or a version of your software running, doesn't mean I want to invite you the hypothetical software developer to live on my system, auto updating things from under me. It's a pattern that has fought harder and harder amongst softdev people to ignore the sanctity of other people's computer for the user's own good that needs to die. Not comparing it to ransomware is absurd, frankly. The more it's normalized, the more people will reach for it as a business model.
- krzepah 6y ago
  When I read things like that it pulls me away even further from continuing CS. How blind are you that you do not realise that forcing a software execution is not ransomeware ? I'll tell you what's wrong here : Docker is a fantastic technology but it simply couldn't find a suitable market tactic. Now it resolves to this shitty practices. I don't even know how you can begin to think that it would add ANY burden to them NOT to run the update on your computer. And here is my problem : It's my computer, I decide what is ran on it or not. Next day we have some idiot getting keys on the docker update system and we simply have built a technologic crash because suddenly nobody can decide wether that update is ran or not. Keeping control away of the user is the most stupid thing there is.
alex_hirner 6y ago
> but is too lazy to come up with better ideas How can you say they are lazy about that?
- alex_hirner 6y ago
  FWIW, parent rephrased the quoted text in the meantime but without edit history.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
stingraycharles 6y ago
> This is just asking for payment for the software to not do something to your machine. I think you’re underestimating the cost for a business to support clients that do not upgrade to the latest version of your software. You’re not paying for the software to “do nothing”, you’re paying for the cost of Docker having a wider variety of software versions to support.
- ratww 6y ago
  No, I'm really not. Docker doesn't have to support anything they don't want. They can support only the latest version and just refuse to support obsolete versions. They can even deprecate API endpoints for versions they don't want to use anymore and ask users to upgrade. They could even sell support for those obsolete versions. This is how a large part of the industry operates and a great strategy for making money. Docker Desktop is an app that runs on local computers. Just as everyone doesn't want Google or Apple forcing things on them, I also don't want third-party software developers doing the same and risking breaking my workflow because they didn't give me the opportunity control and be careful about my upgrades. This is entirely possible. I also work on a company that sells Desktop apps, but we sell to non-technical users. All those users understand that upgrading to the latest version is routine when you have issues.
- closeparen 6y ago
  As far as I’m concerned Docker Desktop, like most desktop software, was finished years ago. No update has ever benefitted me in any way. But many of them have broken things. I don’t need “support” to slowly triage, troubleshoot, and develop a fix when I know I can always fix the problem right now by downgrading. I don’t need “bug fixes” or “stability improvements” when the only threat to stability is the updates. I just need it to stop fucking updating. If I need it to do something new I’ll upgrade. By 99% of the time I need it to keep doing what it did yesterday.
ryandrake 6y ago
Crazy how "not doing something unwanted to my computer" is considered a feature. I remember when the user was in control of their own computer, not rando 3rd party companies. I issue a command to the computer, and the computer executes the command. If I want to update a piece of software, I update it. I guess this is a dinosaur mentality now. This whole "allow the software to do whatever the developer's company wants or stop using the software" trend is pretty nasty.
- cyanydeez 6y ago
  you are in control: 1. install 2. uninstall 3. pay for things
- m463 6y ago
  Honestly, I remember getting into computers because everything was getting better. New capabilities made things faster, easier and smarter. But sometime around the early 2000's businesses started exercising more control over the users. I think it was basically the iphone that started a lot of bad precedents by removing the ability for the user to run his own software - both through he app store, and strict control by apple of what software could run on the phone. I think this was initially done for security/piracy/etc, but the power grab self-propagated. Apple thinks they are responsible for your iphone, but now they think they own it. And when control was reverted to apple, they decided it was not important for people to see what was running on their phone, what it was doing, and who it was talking to. At that point, software companies had more control over your phone than the users. To me, the promise of computers got sort of tarnished - it's a little bit of a dark age. When I hear of a new convenient feature, or smart-iot thing, I think that it will benefit the business and compromise the user. But I still believe -- I think linux phones and tablets will be important checks and balances that can return control to the user and return to a more positive future.

by ratww 6y ago

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]
  - hda111 6y ago
    I suspect Docker-ce to be going closed source as well. They deprecated the repo docker-ce so you can only think what happens next.
- bradleyjg 6y ago
  Who is this “community” exactly? Is it you? Did you write the software they built theirs on top of? If not, who appointed you spokesperson? Did you get an email from Linus saying—-“Hey, I’m really busy. Mind trash talking docker for me?” Claiming you are part of community doesn’t justify a massive sense of entitlement about software you didn’t pay for and didn’t contribute to.
closeparen 6y ago
Alice gives Bob free stuff, therefore Alice is entitled to kick in Bob’s door at 3am, take back the free stuff, and replace it with something else? And Bob must be grateful to Alice for this?

fnord77 6y ago

I bet they didn't check with the FTC before doing this.

xvector 6y ago

No one is making you run Docker Desktop. It is not holding you hostage. There are alternatives in this very thread. Comparing it to ransomware is absurd.

aflag 6y ago
Fair enough, ransomware is certainly an exaggeration, but the absurdity of it comes from the fact that not upgrading it just means they don’t do anything, whereas they are actively doing something and asking for money not to. Usually, people pay money to other people to solve their problems, in this case the same people asking for money to solve the problem are the people creating the problem in the first place.
kordlessagain 6y ago
Docker even uninstalled itself from my computer!
salawat 6y ago
No it isn't, not the way in whch the comparison was made. Previously, ransomware (and some games/media) were tge only software products that asked for a higher price tag to not install extra code the user did not want on their machine. It is a fundamentally predatory practice, because the developers completely misunderstand consent. Just because I have some or a version of your software running, doesn't mean I want to invite you the hypothetical software developer to live on my system, auto updating things from under me. It's a pattern that has fought harder and harder amongst softdev people to ignore the sanctity of other people's computer for the user's own good that needs to die. Not comparing it to ransomware is absurd, frankly. The more it's normalized, the more people will reach for it as a business model.
krzepah 6y ago
When I read things like that it pulls me away even further from continuing CS. How blind are you that you do not realise that forcing a software execution is not ransomeware ? I'll tell you what's wrong here : Docker is a fantastic technology but it simply couldn't find a suitable market tactic. Now it resolves to this shitty practices. I don't even know how you can begin to think that it would add ANY burden to them NOT to run the update on your computer. And here is my problem : It's my computer, I decide what is ran on it or not. Next day we have some idiot getting keys on the docker update system and we simply have built a technologic crash because suddenly nobody can decide wether that update is ran or not. Keeping control away of the user is the most stupid thing there is.

alex_hirner 6y ago

> but is too lazy to come up with better ideas How can you say they are lazy about that?

alex_hirner 6y ago
FWIW, parent rephrased the quoted text in the meantime but without edit history.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

stingraycharles 6y ago

> This is just asking for payment for the software to not do something to your machine. I think you’re underestimating the cost for a business to support clients that do not upgrade to the latest version of your software. You’re not paying for the software to “do nothing”, you’re paying for the cost of Docker having a wider variety of software versions to support.

ratww 6y ago
No, I'm really not. Docker doesn't have to support anything they don't want. They can support only the latest version and just refuse to support obsolete versions. They can even deprecate API endpoints for versions they don't want to use anymore and ask users to upgrade. They could even sell support for those obsolete versions. This is how a large part of the industry operates and a great strategy for making money. Docker Desktop is an app that runs on local computers. Just as everyone doesn't want Google or Apple forcing things on them, I also don't want third-party software developers doing the same and risking breaking my workflow because they didn't give me the opportunity control and be careful about my upgrades. This is entirely possible. I also work on a company that sells Desktop apps, but we sell to non-technical users. All those users understand that upgrading to the latest version is routine when you have issues.
closeparen 6y ago
As far as I’m concerned Docker Desktop, like most desktop software, was finished years ago. No update has ever benefitted me in any way. But many of them have broken things. I don’t need “support” to slowly triage, troubleshoot, and develop a fix when I know I can always fix the problem right now by downgrading. I don’t need “bug fixes” or “stability improvements” when the only threat to stability is the updates. I just need it to stop fucking updating. If I need it to do something new I’ll upgrade. By 99% of the time I need it to keep doing what it did yesterday.

ryandrake 6y ago

Crazy how "not doing something unwanted to my computer" is considered a feature. I remember when the user was in control of their own computer, not rando 3rd party companies. I issue a command to the computer, and the computer executes the command. If I want to update a piece of software, I update it. I guess this is a dinosaur mentality now. This whole "allow the software to do whatever the developer's company wants or stop using the software" trend is pretty nasty.

cyanydeez 6y ago
you are in control: 1. install 2. uninstall 3. pay for things
m463 6y ago
Honestly, I remember getting into computers because everything was getting better. New capabilities made things faster, easier and smarter. But sometime around the early 2000's businesses started exercising more control over the users. I think it was basically the iphone that started a lot of bad precedents by removing the ability for the user to run his own software - both through he app store, and strict control by apple of what software could run on the phone. I think this was initially done for security/piracy/etc, but the power grab self-propagated. Apple thinks they are responsible for your iphone, but now they think they own it. And when control was reverted to apple, they decided it was not important for people to see what was running on their phone, what it was doing, and who it was talking to. At that point, software companies had more control over your phone than the users. To me, the promise of computers got sort of tarnished - it's a little bit of a dark age. When I hear of a new convenient feature, or smart-iot thing, I think that it will benefit the business and compromise the user. But I still believe -- I think linux phones and tablets will be important checks and balances that can return control to the user and return to a more positive future.