We Need to Talk About Docker Hub

If you don't like it, then why don't you use a different provider?

If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff?

Storage, compute, and traffic, isn't free. You've been the beneficiary of charity for years.

Yes, the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite, by exploiting whatever free services they could. And now we're paying the price, as you say, by having DockerHub as the default provider.

My suggestion is therefore that we need independent solutions, that are fully funded as a charity, and stop relying on freemium services from corporations that fundamentally don't care about the public good.

This is really a question of framing. The other way you can look at it is: Docker has benefitted from a community adopting its products, and developing software that makes Docker more useful. As someone who sells Docker services, you benefit from a greater market size.

It's like how WordPress have benefitted from people authoring plugins – even though wordpress.org has hosted them for "free", this has been good commercial sense as it allows them to sell more WordPress.com to people.

Well, by their own amount of events they have and are - they’ve changed their default registry.

If Docker advertises an open source program, it’s completely fair to be critical if they’re not delivering as advertised.

Your response feels in bad faith. Docker is the default registery. That gives them n amount of responsibility. Not to mention organizations should be accountable for their bad behavior. Don't give them a pass.

And once those services are fully developed, and the market is captured, do they still need to provide free services?

Isn't compatibility issues a major problem for alternative registries?

> the open source community has relied on this implicit charity as a parasite

Very loaded language you use, when, typically, commercial software relies on Open Source software and community efforts as a parasite.

Your position is one of presumed entitlement, where you rely on services being provided because the outcry of not doing it would be costly.

So you're right in that sense. It's essentially blackmail: free services in exchange for staying silent.

I think it's unhealthy.

And I argue that we need properly funded, independent services, with clear motives.

Isn’t docker the one getting free stuff?

"Docker has benefitted from a community adopting its products,"

It takes a whole lot of mental gymnastics to argue that a provider of free services is actually the one benefitting from that interaction, and not the other way around.

Go ahead and build your systems on free dependencies like WordPress and Debian, but just get real and don't pretend that you are better than professionals that build business relationships and actually pay for their software dependencies like RHEL and Webflow.

> My suggestion is therefore that we need independent solutions, that are fully funded as a charity, and stop relying on freemium services from corporations that fundamentally don't care about the public good.

We had that already, but none of them invented Docker.

> If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff?

They seem happy to pay; they were complaining (validly) about the process of renewing DSOS.

I mean, paying for your software dependencies doesn’t automatically make things any better.

You're framing this wrong.

They don't whine because they didn't get DSOS status this year. They are confused because they didn't get an answer.

They want communication, not free cookies.

Projection allows one to set the frame of the debate, if you then accuse them of parasitism, it doesn't carry the same weight, as they've already used it against you.

We do use other providers, but as stated Docker Hub is the defacto standard so it would be counterproductive for us to abandon it entirely.

We don't "want free stuff", we pay for docker hub for several accounts, but they offer and promote an Open Source program that we have been part of, that simply does not function properly, and that is our complaint.

Your attitude of "well it's free so it's fine if it's shit, just go somewhere else" is wildly unhelpful to everyone.

Free resources are not charity and using them is not parasitic. Without the sharing ethos there would be no modern software.

Those who can grasp the complexity of needing an ecosystem for modern technology to exist foster it and those who think strictly along the lines of profitability and short sighted morals are the unwitting beneficiaries of things they don't understand.

> none of them invented Docker

I think that depends on what you mean by docker. Lots of similar things existed before, just less formalized and less centralized.

> It's like how WordPress have benefitted from people authoring plugins – even though wordpress.org has hosted them for "free", this has been good commercial sense as it allows them to sell more WordPress.com to people.

With seemingly similar rent-seeking behaviour when Automattic decide they’ve had enough and want to put a toll on that road…

It's wild that "people should pay for software" is a controversial statement amongst software developers.

If software developer, don't pay for the software you rely on. Then non technical users who appreciate software even less would pay for software with much less frequency and for much lower prices when they do!

It is us as developers that need to first institutionalize the idea that software is paid, otherwise we have little hope to get paid for our efforts.

Docker was in serious financial trouble in 2019 after the community had been benefiting from it's products for years by that point.

> we were preparing for our annual DSOS renewal. This process is abysmal, there's no way to apply to roll over membership, or even a renewal process per se, you have to reapply from scratch every year using the same badly-designed form ...

It sounds more to me like those who run DockerHub aren't that interested in giving away free service.

Here's a tiny bit of missing context.

This blog is for LinuxServer.io, who build repositories that produce free docker images, for free, paid for by donations, for a bunch of open source software. By the looks of things, they are literally a charity.

Conversely, their complaint is not "aren't docker rubbish? Let's mob 'em" - it's "heads up, something seems to be wrong and docker are not responding to anything, chances are there's trouble brewing - we're gonna start looking around and if you're depending on this, you should too"

I would say calling "the open source community" a "parasite" because they're using free services from companies that have benefited greatly and earned a lot of money from things given freely by the open source community seems weird.

Seems like a lot of people on here very concerned about those poor struggling corporations, and their exploitation by those evil open source charities. Feels like an evil political wind is blowing, wonder where that's coming from?

I don't agree that you can speak on behalf of "everyone".

> If you're reading this and you work for Docker in some relevant capacity, give us a hint as to what we're supposed to do here, we'd really appreciate it.

It sounds to me like their ultimate goal is to get more free stuff.

And I'm saying: open source should not rely on benevolent corporations.

And writing articles to beg for services is not a healthy strategy in the long term.

Instead: use open standards, don't rely on centralized infrastructure, create a marketplace for providers, and create a better future. Stop maintaining the status quo of indentured servitude.

These Docker "parasites" are providing dozens of free containers for Docker's customers and still have the audacity to request an email correspondence about their sponsorship status.

There is difference between paying for software and paying for the development of software, you know.

Yeah sure, but there's trickle down effects. What incentive would an employer have to hire you to build software, if they can't then go and sell the software that you built for profit.

They (Docker) might not be. Docker Hub is their turf, they can do whatever they want (and face the consequences).

However, the post doesn't say that LinuxServer want free service. They say that they had the opportunity, and they try every year. From what I read, they're perfectly fine with a "No, you are not selected this year".

Being decent and being interested in giving a free service are mutually exclusive. You can provide free service while being mean, you can deny people from your free service while being polite.

The people who wrote this post is only interested with the "polite" part. So, they can see what they're at and act accordingly (reapply, pay, or find other alternatives).

Requesting communication is not a bad thing.

Which makes me wonder, would docker have gained traction if they didn't offer free registry services?

But there's a reason why Docker was so successful - a single file that could define a deployment and tooling to build it into a runnable artefact was incredibly useful. From the future tech useful.

If you can name these other similar solutions created by charities I can probably me more specific.

Would you say Github benefit from open source developers using it? (And if not, why do you think they provide the service?)

These people are maintaining free Docker images for Docker users to use. They're not charging for this, and Docker benefit massively from these images being available!

My employer themself uses the software I write for them plus they provide access to its functionality as a service. This model have been bringing in enough profit for the last 10 years, apparently, to justify the steady expansion of the number of programmers employed.

I love how you intentionally cropped off the first two words of that sentence, try to make out that their 30 word side note was actually the whole point of the 800 word article, and you STILL didn't manage to make them sound as malicious as you wanted to.

"give us a hint" - "Stop begging!"

As I say, you're clearly coming into this with a strong unjustifiable bias, I can tell because you're forced to use words like "smear", "parasite", "exploiting", "beg", "indentured servitude" - it's a cover for the cognitive dissonance.

But if you genuinely would like a discussion about the pitfalls of the funding models of open source, yeah it's a reasonable question that has never been satisfactorily answered. There are whole PHD projects on the subject, and nobody's cracked it. Giving money to open source projects is difficult for many reasons - ranging from tax treatment to geography even to legality. Providing services is somewhat easier, but in many companies in some countries even that comes with geopolitical legal issues. Marketplaces only work if you have something to barter, and if you would like to contribute to the freedoms you enjoyed, it's hard to make that work in a marketplace model, not to mention that even providing people the option of donating money for a product comes with overhead (legal / technological / service / financial network / server etc).

If you would like a discussion about ensuring abstractions over the services you use, sure, I'm here for it. Of course, it's hampered by a lack of consistent interfaces, and in some cases interfaces that ensure they can never be smoothed over. But that sounds like a cool open source project - in this case, I guess it would be an anyhub kind of deal that can serve images for different use cases, paired with a DSL for defining a resource (that can generate a dockerfile / docker compose file, in docker's case). Of course, serving images isn't free, but you've cracked the problem of funding models of open source, right? Right?

And you mention indentured servitude, loaded though that phrase is, it's also a poor analogy. Tax would be a closer match. You depend on open source and make money off it? Great. Giving open source a cut of that pie in some way seems the morally right thing to do. How you do that is up to you, but telling people they can use your service then pulling the rug while simultaneously ghosting them? That sounds kind.

You know what, I think you're right - it's so much easier to lambast someone for daring trust or daring to express concern than it is to do anything meaningful to improve the landscape.

"Would you say Github benefit from open source developers using it? (And if not, why do you think they provide the service?)"

Let's assume it's an equitable exchange.

"These people are maintaining free Docker images for Docker users to use. They're not charging for this, and Docker benefit massively from these images being available!"

Getting into nuance here, I do see the benefit a corp has over hosting source code, training data, reputation, so we see eye to eye there. But I don't see much benefit of hosting container images. Add that to the fact that hosting images is orders of magnitude more expensive than hosting code!

What value is there in being a provider of free hosting that is commesurate with being a host of source code?

Huh? If Docker wants to make money off folks like this, they ought to be attempting to sell to them. If they want to sunset the free services for open source thing, fine, but just ignoring it is completely broken behavior. They’re ignoring the contact methods they advertise when they should be using those as leads. It’s clear Docker is a dysfunctional business at this point.

You’d think they’d at least try to sell to people who are asking for their services.

Ah yes, the phenomenon I was describing does apply more strongly to consumer software. But it also does apply to B2B software to a lesser degree.

In effect the fact that your business model relies on charging for bespoke software, proves that you make no money on software that can be reused for more than one client! Which is actually where most of the efficiency of software comes.

You are really going off the rails here. Asking for a response is eminently reasonable when Docker advertises that they will give away free service.

Except I am not projecting anything, and I didn't accuse OP of being a parasite.

I am just describing a factual state of things of how companies relate to Open Source Software.

> if you genuinely would like a discussion about the pitfalls of the funding models of open source

That is absolutely what I want, and I appreciate your contribution to the debate.

> you're forced to use words like "smear", "parasite"

I'm just trying to use fewer words, because people's attention spans are really short these days, which naturally requires the words to have more dense and intense meaning.

> it's so much easier to lambast someone

It's not easy, it's hard. People are refusing to accept that corporations are not your friends. Have you ever tried criticizing Apple?

My critique is specifically that the article:

1) presumes that Docker Hub should provide the service, despite clearly not responding to their application for free service.

2) then uses an article that invites peer pressure onto the company to get what they want.

Instead, I argue that it would be healthier if they:

1) explained why relying on Docker Hub is dangerous

2) what the alternatives are, and why they're not good enough

3) what needs to change, which may include consumer behavior - things that we control, because we really don't have control over Docker Hub.

> indentured servitude

By collectively perpetuating our dependence on them, we are engaged in self-enslavement.

And I think this type of article is a form of begging that our masters haven't given us enough breadcrumbs lately.

> If you would like a discussion about ensuring abstractions over the services you use

Yes, please.

I'd love to hear your ideas, and I agree that we still need to figure things out, particularly how to make open source self-sustaining.

> If you want free stuff, is your strategy to smear them into giving you more free stuff?

Docker literally offers free stuff if you follow their process. They followed the process and have gotten silence in return. Somehow that doesn't strike me as "smear them into giving you more free stuff".

Don't say you're going to do a thing if you're not going to do the thing.

Even if you want your software to be used by the public, it still doesn't need to be turned into a product, there are other schemes of financing it. You can, for instance, write it off as R&D (which is what programming actually is) or whatever category is assigned to the "donating to Linux Foundation" line in the spending accounts of IBM/Oracle/MS/etc.

> 1) explained why relying on Docker Hub is dangerous

I mean, that's the other 770 words of the article. Except they're just giving their experience, and allowing you to come to your own decisions - because otherwise people might legitimately call them out for "smear" tactics.

> 2) what the alternatives are, and why they're not good enough

"as we grew we started mirroring our images to Gitlab and Quay.io," <= Alternatives (that they are using)

"Docker Hub is the de facto standard Docker registry, literally, if you don't specify a registry when pulling an image Docker will invisibly prepend docker.io/ to it." <= Why they're not good enough (extra config step)

> 3) what needs to change, which may include consumer behavior - things that we control, because we really don't have control over Docker Hub.

"but it does feel like we need to do something. Whatever we decide, we'll keep you informed." <= They're not there yet, but they're open and honest about it

> use fewer words, because people's attention spans are really short these days,

I can see that you have a short attention span.

> which naturally requires the words to have more dense and intense meaning

You are a belligerent, self important ignoramus who incorrectly believes the world needs his opinion. <= genuinely, do you like this style of discourse? Why are you treating shock language as a status quo worth maintaining, but trust and expecting decency from a corporation as some kind of unacceptable failing?

> Isn't compatibility issues a major problem for alternative registries?

Er, is it? I've used a handful of different registries and never hit anything that even resembled a compatibility problem. Have I just been lucky?

With your framing this looks like the free/“free” initial use of such a framing is similar to free accounts on new social media platforms. In that case the motivation is super clear: grow the social platform since a social platform with few users is useless. Then when they get big enough they start charging. Once you’re already locked in via all sorts of connections.

Again in the case of social platforms: for the longest time this was framed as user entitlement if anyone didn’t like it. Which failed to see the other side. Yes, the users wanted something free but the company also got something back from the user.

We could go back and forth on details like the service growing to such a point that the free service becomes too much of a burden on them. But consider the case when the free service was treated by the business as an investment for $X which was supposed to carry that cost until the proverbial rug could be pulled from the users without a mass exodus—grow your user base until you have enough of a mass to demand a considerable escape velocity in order to be avoided.

Again, arguments could be made either way. But it is definitely not as simple-cut as an altruistic service versus selfish users/consumers.

I’m sure someone versed in Economics could summarize the above in a phrase or a sentence.

Nah, I am pissed off at them because they just raised their prices by 80%. If I didn’t look into my teams config, they’d charge me $900 for 5 seats (was the minimum number of seats), instead of $360 for two. They’re fucking predatory and as soon as something cheaper comes by, I’m cancelling my subscriptions with them.

One example that springs to mind is Homebrew/MacPorts. I think they install things differently and might not be interoperable?

They do things differently, but what does that have to do with docker registries?

It’s an example of incompatibility in registries generally, which I thought was the nature of your surprise at its existence or occurrence. I’m not aware of any such incompatibilities among Docker registries, but other issues may affect usage such as rate limits. I’m not sure what the person you were responding to had in mind.

Do I like being called a "self important ignoramus"?

No.

Does it make me belligerent?

Yes.

I care deeply about humanity, and I'm surprised to conclude that we will definitely have a civil war soon.

See you on the other side.

I think of Docker as a well executed and well-timed formalization of existing tools. It put a name to a collection of engineering concepts. This is why people can build Docker in N lines of shell script. Jails existed in the late 90s. IaC had multiple options before Docker.

I had waaay too much problem with pushing to GCR, when pushing to a self-hosted GitLab's registry worked.