10 ms·

Docker is sunsetting Free Team organizations [pdf]

233 points by axelfontaine 4y ago

syntaxing 4y ago
I think most, if not all, open source software I use that recommends Docker install has shifted to GitHub packages these last year or two (frigate and mautrix as an example). I won’t be surprised if this accelerates this transition.
capableweb 4y ago
Everyone who has a "Free Team organization" just received the following email: > 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 for more information. Basically giving everyone ~30 days to migrate their data (to another host or paid Docker plan) or lose access to it. As a funny side-note, the PDF seems to have been made so you cannot copy-paste text out from it, so no interactivity. But that also means that the "How much does a Docker subscription cost?" doesn't actually have any information about how much a subscription cost, and the link to the page doesn't work. Great work Docker Inc.
- candiddevmike 4y ago
  Minimum paid teams subscription is $300/yr. I use free teams and will be switching to GitHub or somewhere else because of how short notice this was. Docker really shit the bed on this one.
  - 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
    Potato potato. Like it or not, they ditched a bunch of free loaders and likely turned a significant number of them into paid customers (at least until they have time to migrate). Big corporate players were already paying, so from a MBA penny counting move, it is brilliant.
    - prepend 4y ago
      More likely they disrupted their users and now people are switching off them and hedging against the risk of docker doing disruptive things. They aren’t quite Novell/SCO levels of dumb, but it’s sad to see such a good company spiral into nothingness.
      - imiric 4y ago
        And organizations that don't switch, will begrudgingly pay up to avoid impacting their users, but will be left with a sour taste as they've essentially been blackmailed into paying. There's no way they're turning these orgs into long-term customers. Especially now when there are plenty of alternative image hosts. I don't get why they couldn't charge by usage, or have more granular tiers. For small teams and projects $300/yr is not an insignificant amount. What a tonedeaf and greedy decision, communicated in a terribly unclear way.
        jen20 4y ago
        Just like Amazon released Finch as a response to the conversion of Docker Desktop to pay-only software, no doubt one of the big players will take advantage of this too.
        Symbiote 4y ago
        The cost difference between projects must be enormous. Some comments in this discussing refer to projects with many millions of hits. Mine has 5000. A free tier with 10GB of image storage and some small number of pulls per month would be fine.
      - 4y ago
- Sytten 4y ago
  I really don't understand the move. No way open source collectives will be able to pay the 300$/y minimum cost for an organisation and there is no way to convert an organisation back to a user. I expect there will be a lot of broken pulling of images on that day.
  - Helmut10001 4y ago
    Gitlab registry is maybe the easiest way out of this, either payed or self-hosted using the community version.
    - nicce 4y ago
      GitHub container registry has no limitations for public projects, unlike GitLab.
      - noptd 4y ago
        No limitations for now.
        folkrav 4y ago
        That could be said of any free container registry out there...
        troyvit 4y ago
        Exactly. Software development is in the middle of a clash with reality. It's just not sensible to expect to pay nothing for a piece of vital infrastructure.
        bongobingo1 4y ago
        100% agreed. Donate to cURL!
      - tedivm 4y ago
zookatron 4y ago
Does anyone have any recommendations on how to preseve the paths of public images on organizations that used to be on the Free Team plan? It doesn't look like it allows you to select the Docker Personal plan (the only free one) for organizations, does that mean the image identifier of these images will need to change or can I convert an organization into a personal account somehow?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- thilog 4y ago
  At the moment, there seems to be no way back. The page to convert an individual user account to an organization account (at https://hub.docker.com/settings/convert https://hub.docker.com/settings/convert) explicitly states: > To use organization features, convert your account from a User to an Organization. > You can't undo this action.
  - jacooper 4y ago
    Delete and recreate the account?
    - AviationAtom 4y ago
      Does Docker reserve the namespace of deleted accounts/orgs? EDIT: I seem to have answered my own question... https://forums.docker.com/t/how-can-i-delete-old-previous-accounts-docker-id-from-docker-hub/82110 https://forums.docker.com/t/how-can-i-delete-old-previous-ac...
josegonzalez 4y ago
Whats phenomenal about this so far is that the email does not indicate: - what actually will happen to teams that don't become paid - what will get deleted on which timeline - whether others will be able to typosquat the images after the teams get deleted - how folks might handle cases where a team is owned by an oss org and has no central billing thing (fairly common) - how we might better handle bot users as part of paid teams Also great is that the only way I'd know this was going on is by checking my email - I quickly went to their blog to look and didn't find anything relating to this email. If anything, I'd want to convert my teams (dokku and gliderlabs) _back_ to single accounts, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do that. I get that there is a need to make the company profitable but maybe spend more than 5 minutes crafting the email and thinking of outcomes for your users (who are already pissed at your pricing changes). This only makes me feel like I should move my hosting to something paid (ECR?), delete the org, and then typosquat the images.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- mattrick 4y ago
  GitHub Container Registry is a decent option for orgs, open source and private. I believe it's free to host public images and private images are just tied into your GitHub billing.
  - WirelessGigabit 4y ago
    Except that the docker cli defaults to the https://hub.docker.com https://hub.docker.com registry. Meaning if you do docker pull rust it'll get it from https://hub.docker.com/_/rust https://hub.docker.com/_/rust Then there are namespaced things, for example your new product, mattrick/awome-flobbergator How to install? Docker. docker pull mattrick/awome-flobbergator Using default tag: latest Error response from daemon: pull access denied for mattrick/awome-flobbergator, repository does not exist or may require 'docker login': denied: requested access to the resource is denied Every time someone needs to prefix it with ghcr.io to make it pull from GitHub. We shouldn't do 1) default registries 2) when we post documentation online we should be explicit as to what the registry is
metadat 4y ago
The information not included in the title is that Docker-the-Company is only shutting down DockerHub private free registry container image hosting. Presumably the publicly accessible DockerHub projects can continue, business as usual. Are there alternative docker registry hosts which provide free private image hosting? Edit: I found a gist with an extensive list! https://gist.github.com/JakubOboza/fbd6259f5b6321f17e8c3cdb1b095004 https://gist.github.com/JakubOboza/fbd6259f5b6321f17e8c3cdb1...
- paulgb 4y ago
  I just got the same email, and am a bit confused on that point. The FAQ makes it sound like it's about private repos, but from the email the scope appears to be broader: [edit: email removed to reduce noise since it appears elsewhere in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35154060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35154060]
- cuu508 4y ago
  It's really unclear but from this paragraph in the email it sounds like the whole organization will be "subject to deletion": > 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.
- nicce 4y ago
  If you look pricing table of Docker, https://www.docker.com/pricing/ https://www.docker.com/pricing/ There is no Teams for free tier. Likely everything is affected.
  - metadat 4y ago
    Does this mean DockerHub is going to stop hosting all the open source container imahes? That'd be a great way to make Docker-the-company 100% irrelevant. I hope we're misunderstanding and they wouldn't do such a move.
Sean-Der 4y ago
Does anyone know if any deals/exemptions exist for Open Source? Don’t want all my images for github.com/pion/webrtc to not be available, but paying is a bit much.
- BadBadJellyBean 4y ago
  I think Docker Inc really doesn't want to host images for free anymore. The best way forward might be to mirror your images to other services.
  - johannes1234321 4y ago
    It is understandable, considering the traffic costs they must have. However I don't see how that game play will work out, considering that each cloud provider got their registry, which ties better to the cloud platform, each code hosting site (GitHub, gitlab) have their registry, which ties to their CI offerings ... why should anybody pick Docker Hub, which is another commercial contract and ties in, in a worse manner?
- juliosueiras 4y ago
  maybe quay.io?
  - rnmkr 4y ago
    Does quay.io have a free tier? FAQ says public repos are free, but it doesn't have free tier.
- alexellisuk 4y ago
  We publish openfaas images to ghcr.io and have no complaints. GitHub has had a rough time of it lately with numerous outages, but overall the registry is solid. https://www.githubstatus.com/history?page=1 https://www.githubstatus.com/history?page=1
- nicce 4y ago
  There is open-source program https://www.docker.com/community/open-source/application/ https://www.docker.com/community/open-source/application/
georgdangl 4y ago
We just got this as well. All we're using it for is to have a namespace for public repositories, but the email doesn't say anything about whether or not those will be kept around.
alexellisuk 4y ago
Utterly confusing messaging from Docker once again, and this is from a prior advocate for early Docker, and part of their Captains program for several years. The wording seems clear that they are going to delete all data and lock access unless payment is received within 30 days, whether there are public or private repos in the organisation. I pay for a personal account, however my main concern is people taking over the official account names and publishing poison images which people are used to pulling already, and won't even think to check if the account ownership has changed. I've asked the CTO to comment on Twitter. https://twitter.com/alexellisuk/status/1635679295891812359?s=20 https://twitter.com/alexellisuk/status/1635679295891812359?s...
- Operyl 4y ago
  That's exactly why I have a "teams" account on Docker, we had previously posted Images for an OSS project to the hub, but migrated to a different repository later on. We still push public images there, but, we tell everyone to use the new repo for upgrades/new installs. How frustrating.
- hddqsb 4y ago
  > however my main concern is people taking over the official account names and publishing poison images The PDF has been updated to address that: > Can someone else “squat” my namespace? > No. Even if your organization is suspended, deleted, or you choose to leave Docker voluntarily, your organization’s namespace will not be released, so other users can’t “squat” your images.
cabirum 4y ago
Anyone can deploy and run a selfhosted registry server, I fail to see a problem here. It's even better to keep your team's private images off Docker servers.
- paulgb 4y ago
  Despite the title of the FAQ, this is not just about private repos, it's about public ones too. Having to change the path to public repos (which could reside in different documentation, third-party tutorials, scripts, etc.) within 30 days is a reasonable thing to feel disrupted by.
  - frollo 4y ago
    Yeah. I don't host anything on their repo, but now I have 30 days to go through all every Docker image I use and check if they have moved. This is extremely disruptive for me (and something I'll remember next time I'm considering something offered by Docker Inc or dependent on them).
    - prmoustache 4y ago
      Consider it a wake up call that you should have been doing that on a regular basis already. Has Docker ever garantied that if a project closed is account another hostile one wouldn't be able to reuse the name? Outside of name takover, you could have been pulling abandonned non updated images for weeks/months without knowing it.
- zrail 4y ago
  I set up a private mirror of everything I use from docker hub because I came home from vacation one day recently to discover that my home IP had been throttled for days. Now I have a small GitHub Action project that mirrors from hub.docker.com to a private registry running on fly.io. Took all of 10 minutes to set up and now I don't have to worry about getting throttled or docker hub going away.
- slig 4y ago
  What would be the simplest/best selfhosted registry to self-host? I'm using the one from DigitalOcean, but I might self-host if there's a nice recommendation.
ilovecaching 4y ago
At this point I stay far away from anything Docker Inc. Podman already has an architecture that makes way more sense on Linux. There are plenty of free alternatives for image registries, but self hosting is also super easy (I mean why not just run a registry container and be done with it).
- cabirum 4y ago
  I thought Podman attempts to mimic Docker behavior as close as possible? What is different in its architecture exactly?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - saxonww 4y ago
    A primary difference is no server component running as root.
  - zrail 4y ago
    By default Podman doesn't have a daemon running as root, although you can opt into it. Podman instead really encourages setting up systemd units to keep your images running.
  - nicce 4y ago
    Podman is very different internally than Docker. It might mimic commands and OCI image standard, but other things are quite different. Docker is daemon-based and and Podman is not. Podman uses SELinux by default with additional features and other practices for better security. You can use it without root user.
  - doublepg23 4y ago
    The primary difference is you’ll attempt to use Podman and begrudgingly go back to Docker after banging your head debugging SELinux.
    - 4y ago
adoxyz 4y ago
DigitalOcean offers a single repository for free. https://www.digitalocean.com/products/container-registry https://www.digitalocean.com/products/container-registry
alexktz 4y ago
Docker as the default librarian of images due to the root namespace hijack in docker clients has a duty of care to maintain trust. A policy of preventing namespace reuse for 1 year before recycling should give time to prevent poisoned images squatting on popular handles.
- verdverm 4y ago
  It has to be a never type of deal, people use images way older than a year, especially the ones most likely to be hit by poisoning
freewizard 4y ago
got this email for a small open source project I had. Not having a lot of users yet, so not sure I'll bother with the Docker Open Source Program which takes time to apply and wait for manual review. Also the email and faq doesn't mention the existence of Docker Open Source Program, which is seems a sign of no guarantee that rule won't change again. Wondering which would be better alternative, Codeberg vs Github CR?
- jacooper 4y ago
  It depends on which one you use for coding!
verdverm 4y ago
FYI, there is now an issue on Docker's GitHub to ask questions and comment on, per Docker's CTO https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/2314 https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/2314 https://twitter.com/justincormack/status/1635704358355468307 https://twitter.com/justincormack/status/1635704358355468307 --- key takeaways > Any organizations suspended or deleted will not release the namespace, so squatting previous namespaces will not be possible.
- Uvix 4y ago
  If deleted organizations are not released, does that mean there's no road to getting the namespace back if an organization decides 2-3 years down the road to return to Docker?
  - verdverm 4y ago
    good question, I'd ask on the GH issue
  - AviationAtom 4y ago
    This issue bit me on Gmail. I feel like once you have registered a namespace you should always be able to reclaim it using the same communication medium in use when it was active. Maybe I'm not thinking deep enough on the issue though?
ericb 4y ago
Docker: We're making 100 million/year in revenue and everyone is treating us as the trusted place to work with docker images--we're a huge success! "For our next act, let's hold their images hostage and threaten to kill them in 30 days unless they pay a ransom!" I mean, it's ok to hate your users, but maybe just don't make it so obvious?
hk1337 4y ago
My biggest concern is the use of the local application. I don't _think_ that is affected but we'll see. I don't currently log in at all on the local application, will they start requiring you to login to even use the application? We keep our repositories on AWS ECR, so we don't need it on Docker.
wankle 4y ago
It's fairly common for dev tool hosts to not provide team features for free. Every time something comes up lately about Docker, it's anti-favorable, I don't get it. They freakin' let us self-host our own container registry if we want and explain it in detail: https://docs.docker.com/registry/deploying/ https://docs.docker.com/registry/deploying/
mmh0000 4y ago
For anyone who needs a replacement container registry, doesn't mind self-hosting, checkout Project Quay[1]. It is a free, open-source, container registry. Primarily developed by Red Hat. It has a complete and well documented API[2]. And, in general has great documentation[3]. [1] https://www.projectquay.io/ https://www.projectquay.io/ [2] https://docs.projectquay.io/api_quay.html https://docs.projectquay.io/api_quay.html [3] https://docs.projectquay.io/use_quay.html https://docs.projectquay.io/use_quay.html
lloydatkinson 4y ago
Is there any progress on podman for Windows or any other way of running containers on Windows? I cannot wait for the day theejder development community doesn't need to rely on anything from this company.
- prmoustache 4y ago
  You can install podman on ws2.
musicale 4y ago
Thanks Docker for accelerating the migration to podman and github's container registry.
rnmkr 4y ago
Instead of pay us or get deleted, why don't they create another free tier for public repos only to support OSS?
advancingu 4y ago
It seems to be a habit at Docker to give incredibly short notice before service shutdowns: See the 2018 shutdown of some Docker Cloud services which had a two month notice period ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665130 ) I got bit by that back then as a commercial customer and sent a complaint to them. Response was an offer for tickets and travel to a just upcoming Docker Con. Well, thanks but no thanks. I don't need to go to their conference when I'm busy migrating my org to a different service provider.
TheMadHatter76 4y ago
I think docker is potentially just another example of service that can change terms and leave you in the lurch. Imho we are entering a time where portability and the ability to control your own destiny is going to be very important. That means when you do commit to a provider, or host, make sure you can move off. Maybe use methods that mask the end user from back-end provider changes or shenanigans, etc.
anewlanguage 4y ago
I work for a non-profit scientific research organization and we pay for a DockerHub Team subscription. It's where we host almost all of our images. But we also had a small Free Team that was used for one project just to put it in a different namespace, which we now have to scramble to move somewhere. It doesn't make any sense to double our costs just for that one project. This move by Docker does not inspire any confidence in their long-term management, and will very likely drive us away from DockerHub entirely. It's really sad to watch this company fall from grace. I was an early adopter and always rooted for them from the very beginning.
zoobab 4y ago
Switch to FileCoin for hosting where you can donate your laptop as a hosting ressource.
x512 4y ago
We need a distributed registry for things like this, something like Bittorrent.

233 points by axelfontaine 4y ago

I think most, if not all, open source software I use that recommends Docker install has shifted to GitHub packages these last year or two (frigate and mautrix as an example). I won’t be surprised if this accelerates this transition.

capableweb 4y ago

Everyone who has a "Free Team organization" just received the following email: > 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 for more information. Basically giving everyone ~30 days to migrate their data (to another host or paid Docker plan) or lose access to it. As a funny side-note, the PDF seems to have been made so you cannot copy-paste text out from it, so no interactivity. But that also means that the "How much does a Docker subscription cost?" doesn't actually have any information about how much a subscription cost, and the link to the page doesn't work. Great work Docker Inc.

candiddevmike 4y ago
Minimum paid teams subscription is $300/yr. I use free teams and will be switching to GitHub or somewhere else because of how short notice this was. Docker really shit the bed on this one.
- 0cf8612b2e1e 4y ago
  Potato potato. Like it or not, they ditched a bunch of free loaders and likely turned a significant number of them into paid customers (at least until they have time to migrate). Big corporate players were already paying, so from a MBA penny counting move, it is brilliant.
  - prepend 4y ago
    More likely they disrupted their users and now people are switching off them and hedging against the risk of docker doing disruptive things. They aren’t quite Novell/SCO levels of dumb, but it’s sad to see such a good company spiral into nothingness.
    - imiric 4y ago
      And organizations that don't switch, will begrudgingly pay up to avoid impacting their users, but will be left with a sour taste as they've essentially been blackmailed into paying. There's no way they're turning these orgs into long-term customers. Especially now when there are plenty of alternative image hosts. I don't get why they couldn't charge by usage, or have more granular tiers. For small teams and projects $300/yr is not an insignificant amount. What a tonedeaf and greedy decision, communicated in a terribly unclear way.
      - jen20 4y ago
        Just like Amazon released Finch as a response to the conversion of Docker Desktop to pay-only software, no doubt one of the big players will take advantage of this too.
      - Symbiote 4y ago
        The cost difference between projects must be enormous. Some comments in this discussing refer to projects with many millions of hits. Mine has 5000. A free tier with 10GB of image storage and some small number of pulls per month would be fine.
    - 4y ago
Sytten 4y ago
I really don't understand the move. No way open source collectives will be able to pay the 300$/y minimum cost for an organisation and there is no way to convert an organisation back to a user. I expect there will be a lot of broken pulling of images on that day.
- Helmut10001 4y ago
  Gitlab registry is maybe the easiest way out of this, either payed or self-hosted using the community version.
  - nicce 4y ago
    GitHub container registry has no limitations for public projects, unlike GitLab.
    - noptd 4y ago
      No limitations for now.
      - folkrav 4y ago
        That could be said of any free container registry out there...
        troyvit 4y ago
        Exactly. Software development is in the middle of a clash with reality. It's just not sensible to expect to pay nothing for a piece of vital infrastructure.
        bongobingo1 4y ago
        100% agreed. Donate to cURL!
    - tedivm 4y ago

zookatron 4y ago

Does anyone have any recommendations on how to preseve the paths of public images on organizations that used to be on the Free Team plan? It doesn't look like it allows you to select the Docker Personal plan (the only free one) for organizations, does that mean the image identifier of these images will need to change or can I convert an organization into a personal account somehow?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
thilog 4y ago
At the moment, there seems to be no way back. The page to convert an individual user account to an organization account (at https://hub.docker.com/settings/convert https://hub.docker.com/settings/convert) explicitly states: > To use organization features, convert your account from a User to an Organization. > You can't undo this action.
- jacooper 4y ago
  Delete and recreate the account?
  - AviationAtom 4y ago
    Does Docker reserve the namespace of deleted accounts/orgs? EDIT: I seem to have answered my own question... https://forums.docker.com/t/how-can-i-delete-old-previous-accounts-docker-id-from-docker-hub/82110 https://forums.docker.com/t/how-can-i-delete-old-previous-ac...

josegonzalez 4y ago

Whats phenomenal about this so far is that the email does not indicate: - what actually will happen to teams that don't become paid - what will get deleted on which timeline - whether others will be able to typosquat the images after the teams get deleted - how folks might handle cases where a team is owned by an oss org and has no central billing thing (fairly common) - how we might better handle bot users as part of paid teams Also great is that the only way I'd know this was going on is by checking my email - I quickly went to their blog to look and didn't find anything relating to this email. If anything, I'd want to convert my teams (dokku and gliderlabs) _back_ to single accounts, but there doesn't seem to be a way to do that. I get that there is a need to make the company profitable but maybe spend more than 5 minutes crafting the email and thinking of outcomes for your users (who are already pissed at your pricing changes). This only makes me feel like I should move my hosting to something paid (ECR?), delete the org, and then typosquat the images.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
mattrick 4y ago
GitHub Container Registry is a decent option for orgs, open source and private. I believe it's free to host public images and private images are just tied into your GitHub billing.
- WirelessGigabit 4y ago
  Except that the docker cli defaults to the https://hub.docker.com https://hub.docker.com registry. Meaning if you do docker pull rust it'll get it from https://hub.docker.com/_/rust https://hub.docker.com/_/rust Then there are namespaced things, for example your new product, mattrick/awome-flobbergator How to install? Docker. docker pull mattrick/awome-flobbergator Using default tag: latest Error response from daemon: pull access denied for mattrick/awome-flobbergator, repository does not exist or may require 'docker login': denied: requested access to the resource is denied Every time someone needs to prefix it with ghcr.io to make it pull from GitHub. We shouldn't do 1) default registries 2) when we post documentation online we should be explicit as to what the registry is

metadat 4y ago

The information not included in the title is that Docker-the-Company is only shutting down DockerHub private free registry container image hosting. Presumably the publicly accessible DockerHub projects can continue, business as usual. Are there alternative docker registry hosts which provide free private image hosting? Edit: I found a gist with an extensive list! https://gist.github.com/JakubOboza/fbd6259f5b6321f17e8c3cdb1b095004 https://gist.github.com/JakubOboza/fbd6259f5b6321f17e8c3cdb1...

paulgb 4y ago
I just got the same email, and am a bit confused on that point. The FAQ makes it sound like it's about private repos, but from the email the scope appears to be broader: [edit: email removed to reduce noise since it appears elsewhere in these comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35154060 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35154060]
cuu508 4y ago
It's really unclear but from this paragraph in the email it sounds like the whole organization will be "subject to deletion": > 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.
nicce 4y ago
If you look pricing table of Docker, https://www.docker.com/pricing/ https://www.docker.com/pricing/ There is no Teams for free tier. Likely everything is affected.
- metadat 4y ago
  Does this mean DockerHub is going to stop hosting all the open source container imahes? That'd be a great way to make Docker-the-company 100% irrelevant. I hope we're misunderstanding and they wouldn't do such a move.

Sean-Der 4y ago

Does anyone know if any deals/exemptions exist for Open Source? Don’t want all my images for github.com/pion/webrtc to not be available, but paying is a bit much.

BadBadJellyBean 4y ago
I think Docker Inc really doesn't want to host images for free anymore. The best way forward might be to mirror your images to other services.
- johannes1234321 4y ago
  It is understandable, considering the traffic costs they must have. However I don't see how that game play will work out, considering that each cloud provider got their registry, which ties better to the cloud platform, each code hosting site (GitHub, gitlab) have their registry, which ties to their CI offerings ... why should anybody pick Docker Hub, which is another commercial contract and ties in, in a worse manner?
juliosueiras 4y ago
maybe quay.io?
- rnmkr 4y ago
  Does quay.io have a free tier? FAQ says public repos are free, but it doesn't have free tier.
alexellisuk 4y ago
We publish openfaas images to ghcr.io and have no complaints. GitHub has had a rough time of it lately with numerous outages, but overall the registry is solid. https://www.githubstatus.com/history?page=1 https://www.githubstatus.com/history?page=1
nicce 4y ago
There is open-source program https://www.docker.com/community/open-source/application/ https://www.docker.com/community/open-source/application/

georgdangl 4y ago

We just got this as well. All we're using it for is to have a namespace for public repositories, but the email doesn't say anything about whether or not those will be kept around.

alexellisuk 4y ago

Utterly confusing messaging from Docker once again, and this is from a prior advocate for early Docker, and part of their Captains program for several years. The wording seems clear that they are going to delete all data and lock access unless payment is received within 30 days, whether there are public or private repos in the organisation. I pay for a personal account, however my main concern is people taking over the official account names and publishing poison images which people are used to pulling already, and won't even think to check if the account ownership has changed. I've asked the CTO to comment on Twitter. https://twitter.com/alexellisuk/status/1635679295891812359?s=20 https://twitter.com/alexellisuk/status/1635679295891812359?s...

Operyl 4y ago
That's exactly why I have a "teams" account on Docker, we had previously posted Images for an OSS project to the hub, but migrated to a different repository later on. We still push public images there, but, we tell everyone to use the new repo for upgrades/new installs. How frustrating.
hddqsb 4y ago
> however my main concern is people taking over the official account names and publishing poison images The PDF has been updated to address that: > Can someone else “squat” my namespace? > No. Even if your organization is suspended, deleted, or you choose to leave Docker voluntarily, your organization’s namespace will not be released, so other users can’t “squat” your images.

cabirum 4y ago

Anyone can deploy and run a selfhosted registry server, I fail to see a problem here. It's even better to keep your team's private images off Docker servers.

paulgb 4y ago
Despite the title of the FAQ, this is not just about private repos, it's about public ones too. Having to change the path to public repos (which could reside in different documentation, third-party tutorials, scripts, etc.) within 30 days is a reasonable thing to feel disrupted by.
- frollo 4y ago
  Yeah. I don't host anything on their repo, but now I have 30 days to go through all every Docker image I use and check if they have moved. This is extremely disruptive for me (and something I'll remember next time I'm considering something offered by Docker Inc or dependent on them).
  - prmoustache 4y ago
    Consider it a wake up call that you should have been doing that on a regular basis already. Has Docker ever garantied that if a project closed is account another hostile one wouldn't be able to reuse the name? Outside of name takover, you could have been pulling abandonned non updated images for weeks/months without knowing it.
zrail 4y ago
I set up a private mirror of everything I use from docker hub because I came home from vacation one day recently to discover that my home IP had been throttled for days. Now I have a small GitHub Action project that mirrors from hub.docker.com to a private registry running on fly.io. Took all of 10 minutes to set up and now I don't have to worry about getting throttled or docker hub going away.
slig 4y ago
What would be the simplest/best selfhosted registry to self-host? I'm using the one from DigitalOcean, but I might self-host if there's a nice recommendation.

ilovecaching 4y ago

At this point I stay far away from anything Docker Inc. Podman already has an architecture that makes way more sense on Linux. There are plenty of free alternatives for image registries, but self hosting is also super easy (I mean why not just run a registry container and be done with it).

cabirum 4y ago
I thought Podman attempts to mimic Docker behavior as close as possible? What is different in its architecture exactly?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- saxonww 4y ago
  A primary difference is no server component running as root.
- zrail 4y ago
  By default Podman doesn't have a daemon running as root, although you can opt into it. Podman instead really encourages setting up systemd units to keep your images running.
- nicce 4y ago
  Podman is very different internally than Docker. It might mimic commands and OCI image standard, but other things are quite different. Docker is daemon-based and and Podman is not. Podman uses SELinux by default with additional features and other practices for better security. You can use it without root user.
- doublepg23 4y ago
  The primary difference is you’ll attempt to use Podman and begrudgingly go back to Docker after banging your head debugging SELinux.
  - 4y ago

adoxyz 4y ago

DigitalOcean offers a single repository for free. https://www.digitalocean.com/products/container-registry https://www.digitalocean.com/products/container-registry

alexktz 4y ago

Docker as the default librarian of images due to the root namespace hijack in docker clients has a duty of care to maintain trust. A policy of preventing namespace reuse for 1 year before recycling should give time to prevent poisoned images squatting on popular handles.

verdverm 4y ago
It has to be a never type of deal, people use images way older than a year, especially the ones most likely to be hit by poisoning

freewizard 4y ago

got this email for a small open source project I had. Not having a lot of users yet, so not sure I'll bother with the Docker Open Source Program which takes time to apply and wait for manual review. Also the email and faq doesn't mention the existence of Docker Open Source Program, which is seems a sign of no guarantee that rule won't change again. Wondering which would be better alternative, Codeberg vs Github CR?

jacooper 4y ago
It depends on which one you use for coding!

verdverm 4y ago

FYI, there is now an issue on Docker's GitHub to ask questions and comment on, per Docker's CTO https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/2314 https://github.com/docker/hub-feedback/issues/2314 https://twitter.com/justincormack/status/1635704358355468307 https://twitter.com/justincormack/status/1635704358355468307 --- key takeaways > Any organizations suspended or deleted will not release the namespace, so squatting previous namespaces will not be possible.

Uvix 4y ago
If deleted organizations are not released, does that mean there's no road to getting the namespace back if an organization decides 2-3 years down the road to return to Docker?
- verdverm 4y ago
  good question, I'd ask on the GH issue
- AviationAtom 4y ago
  This issue bit me on Gmail. I feel like once you have registered a namespace you should always be able to reclaim it using the same communication medium in use when it was active. Maybe I'm not thinking deep enough on the issue though?

ericb 4y ago

Docker: We're making 100 million/year in revenue and everyone is treating us as the trusted place to work with docker images--we're a huge success! "For our next act, let's hold their images hostage and threaten to kill them in 30 days unless they pay a ransom!" I mean, it's ok to hate your users, but maybe just don't make it so obvious?

hk1337 4y ago

My biggest concern is the use of the local application. I don't _think_ that is affected but we'll see. I don't currently log in at all on the local application, will they start requiring you to login to even use the application? We keep our repositories on AWS ECR, so we don't need it on Docker.

wankle 4y ago

It's fairly common for dev tool hosts to not provide team features for free. Every time something comes up lately about Docker, it's anti-favorable, I don't get it. They freakin' let us self-host our own container registry if we want and explain it in detail: https://docs.docker.com/registry/deploying/ https://docs.docker.com/registry/deploying/

mmh0000 4y ago

For anyone who needs a replacement container registry, doesn't mind self-hosting, checkout Project Quay[1]. It is a free, open-source, container registry. Primarily developed by Red Hat. It has a complete and well documented API[2]. And, in general has great documentation[3]. [1] https://www.projectquay.io/ https://www.projectquay.io/ [2] https://docs.projectquay.io/api_quay.html https://docs.projectquay.io/api_quay.html [3] https://docs.projectquay.io/use_quay.html https://docs.projectquay.io/use_quay.html

lloydatkinson 4y ago

Is there any progress on podman for Windows or any other way of running containers on Windows? I cannot wait for the day theejder development community doesn't need to rely on anything from this company.

prmoustache 4y ago
You can install podman on ws2.

musicale 4y ago

Thanks Docker for accelerating the migration to podman and github's container registry.

rnmkr 4y ago

Instead of pay us or get deleted, why don't they create another free tier for public repos only to support OSS?

advancingu 4y ago

It seems to be a habit at Docker to give incredibly short notice before service shutdowns: See the 2018 shutdown of some Docker Cloud services which had a two month notice period ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665130 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16665130 ) I got bit by that back then as a commercial customer and sent a complaint to them. Response was an offer for tickets and travel to a just upcoming Docker Con. Well, thanks but no thanks. I don't need to go to their conference when I'm busy migrating my org to a different service provider.

TheMadHatter76 4y ago

I think docker is potentially just another example of service that can change terms and leave you in the lurch. Imho we are entering a time where portability and the ability to control your own destiny is going to be very important. That means when you do commit to a provider, or host, make sure you can move off. Maybe use methods that mask the end user from back-end provider changes or shenanigans, etc.

anewlanguage 4y ago

I work for a non-profit scientific research organization and we pay for a DockerHub Team subscription. It's where we host almost all of our images. But we also had a small Free Team that was used for one project just to put it in a different namespace, which we now have to scramble to move somewhere. It doesn't make any sense to double our costs just for that one project. This move by Docker does not inspire any confidence in their long-term management, and will very likely drive us away from DockerHub entirely. It's really sad to watch this company fall from grace. I was an early adopter and always rooted for them from the very beginning.

zoobab 4y ago

Switch to FileCoin for hosting where you can donate your laptop as a hosting ressource.

x512 4y ago

We need a distributed registry for things like this, something like Bittorrent.