←back to thread

The Deletion of Docker.io/Bitnami

(community.broadcom.com)
329 points zdkaster | 5 comments | 28 Aug 25 04:37 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
asmor ◴[28 Aug 25 07:28 UTC] No.45049447[source]▶
> However, in order to sustain and support the dedicated team of engineers who maintain and build new charts and images, a subscription will be required if an organization needs the images and charts built and hosted in an OCI registry for them.

This is such a naive take. Bitnami images were a sign of goodwill, a foot in the door at places were the hardened images were actually needed. They just couldn't compete with the better options on the market. This isn't a way to fix it, it's extortion. This is the same thing Terraform Cloud did, and I don't think that product is doing so hot.

> Essentially, Bitnami has been the Jenkins of the internet for many years, but this has become unsustainable.

It's other people's software, so it's very rich of Bitnami to accuse anyone of freeloading when their only contribution is adding config options to software that maybe corresponds to a level 2 on the OperatorFramework capability scale[1] - usually more of a 1.

[1]: https://operatorframework.io/operator-capabilities/

replies(11): >>45050005 #>>45050042 #>>45050416 #>>45050488 #>>45050688 #>>45050800 #>>45051410 #>>45052041 #>>45053279 #>>45054090 #>>45055791 #
pst ◴[28 Aug 25 11:18 UTC] No.45050800[source]▶
You're not wrong. They add miniscule value. But what does that say about the people using these images who are now struggling to replace them?
replies(3): >>45050823 #>>45050858 #>>45052875 #
1. carlhjerpe ◴[28 Aug 25 11:22 UTC] No.45050823[source]▶
Packaging is not miniscule value, it's valuable gruntwork.
replies(1): >>45051426 #
2. pst ◴[28 Aug 25 12:38 UTC] No.45051426[source]▶
A lot of work that apparently is not valued enough to justify paying for.
replies(3): >>45051481 #>>45051781 #>>45056607 #
3. carlhjerpe ◴[28 Aug 25 12:45 UTC] No.45051481[source]▶
You could make the same argument against Linux, openssl, ffmpeg, compression algorithms, web browsers and so many more things.

A select few will pay for the rest of us, but it's valuable to everyone who uses it.

Broadcom just wants to squeeze anyone who can't do it themselves.

4. asmor ◴[28 Aug 25 13:15 UTC] No.45051781[source]▶
The problem isn't paying for it, it's the extra workload of retrofitting authentication to all your things. I'd find this a lot more enticing if they just made you set a "i have a license or i am evaluating or i am not commercial" flag in Helm or fail the build. Plus the cost is extremely disproportionate, but some will pay it given the one month deadline.
5. tracker1 ◴[28 Aug 25 20:20 UTC] No.45056607[source]▶
I'm mixed... I've spent the time to create installers and docker images for a couple things, mostly because I wanted them to exist for myself, that others found them useful was a cool side effect. Nothing to the breadth or scope of Bitnami though.

That said, it seems to be a side effect of their business model that they don't feel they can offer for free, or otherwise choose not to in order to convince people to move. It seems there's nothing stopping someone from forking and/or continuing the packaging for apps they use based on where Bitnami is today. Cool.

I'd personally like to see a lot of these hardening efforts upstream anyway... separating base images for build vs. runtime and more so with the "official" app images themselves. People do and should have different expectations from a lot of applications when packaged in a container vs. installed on a system.