4 ms·

I dont get this argument. Docker didnt break backwards compatibility. They literally just wanted big projects to pay for the storage and bandwidth they were usi

I dont get this argument. Docker didnt break backwards compatibility. They literally just wanted big projects to pay for the storage and bandwidth they were using.

Karunamon 4y ago
If all they wanted was the whales to pay up, why did they not target the big projects, using some objective metric like pull count or actual bandwidth consumption rather than literally everybody? Team projects are often used for namespacing reasons and teams of one are not uncommon.
- nextlevelwizard 4y ago
  How do you distinguish between big and small projects?
palata 4y ago
They said: "You have 30 days to move away or pay. If you don't do anything, you will lose access to your published images, but we won't remove them. So they will rot on our registry and confuse your users." At least that's what I understood. And it really sucked. I would even understand if they did not want to pay for open source images. But 1) give me more than 30 days 2) either remove my images or leave me in control to remove them later, not something in between.
twblalock 4y ago
It's a really bad move to give something away for free for years, and then suddenly announce you will charge for it and everyone has 30 days to figure it out. Over a shorter time scale that would be called "bait and switch" and it would be illegal. Over a longer time scale it's still a massive dick move and destroys customer trust.
- redeeman 4y ago
  when most customers trust the tech giants like google, payment processors and such, they have already been taught not to apply scrutiny to whom to trust
- justeleblanc 4y ago
  > Over a shorter time scale that would be called "bait and switch" and it would be illegal. No, it wouldn't. It would be "bait and switch" if you had committed to use Docker Hub for the next year, and they announced after two months that now you have to pay for it and you can't back out. If I offer you a piece of gum for free today, and tomorrow you come back and I say either pay $1 or you don't get my gum, have I committed any kind of fraud or whatever? > Over a longer time scale it's still a massive dick move and destroys customer trust. "Customers" on a free plan?
- nextlevelwizard 4y ago
  The bait and switch argument is so disingenuous. As if they don’t have the right to make money out of their product. Payment models change with the world and economy.

I dont get this argument. Docker didnt break backwards compatibility. They literally just wanted big projects to pay for the storage and bandwidth they were using.

Karunamon 4y ago

If all they wanted was the whales to pay up, why did they not target the big projects, using some objective metric like pull count or actual bandwidth consumption rather than literally everybody? Team projects are often used for namespacing reasons and teams of one are not uncommon.

nextlevelwizard 4y ago
How do you distinguish between big and small projects?

palata 4y ago

They said: "You have 30 days to move away or pay. If you don't do anything, you will lose access to your published images, but we won't remove them. So they will rot on our registry and confuse your users." At least that's what I understood. And it really sucked. I would even understand if they did not want to pay for open source images. But 1) give me more than 30 days 2) either remove my images or leave me in control to remove them later, not something in between.

twblalock 4y ago

It's a really bad move to give something away for free for years, and then suddenly announce you will charge for it and everyone has 30 days to figure it out. Over a shorter time scale that would be called "bait and switch" and it would be illegal. Over a longer time scale it's still a massive dick move and destroys customer trust.

redeeman 4y ago
when most customers trust the tech giants like google, payment processors and such, they have already been taught not to apply scrutiny to whom to trust
justeleblanc 4y ago
> Over a shorter time scale that would be called "bait and switch" and it would be illegal. No, it wouldn't. It would be "bait and switch" if you had committed to use Docker Hub for the next year, and they announced after two months that now you have to pay for it and you can't back out. If I offer you a piece of gum for free today, and tomorrow you come back and I say either pay $1 or you don't get my gum, have I committed any kind of fraud or whatever? > Over a longer time scale it's still a massive dick move and destroys customer trust. "Customers" on a free plan?
nextlevelwizard 4y ago
The bait and switch argument is so disingenuous. As if they don’t have the right to make money out of their product. Payment models change with the world and economy.