←back to thread

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

(github.com)
672 points LexSiga | 4 comments | 22 Oct 25 06:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.001s | source
Show context
Tepix ◴[22 Oct 25 09:12 UTC] No.45666563[source]▶
It's an Open Source project - I don't understand what people are complaining about. Noone is entitled to receive free Docker images. I'm sure if there is enough demand, someone else who is trustworthy will step up and automate building them.

What I'd like to complain about instead is the pricing page on the Min.io webpage - it doesn't list any pricing. Looking at https://cloudian.com/blog/minios-ui-removal-leaves-organizat... it seems the prices are not cheap at all (minimum of $96,000 per year). Note that Cloudian is a competitor offering a closed-source product.

replies(20): >>45666657 #>>45666766 #>>45666806 #>>45666929 #>>45667098 #>>45667178 #>>45667201 #>>45667203 #>>45667286 #>>45667401 #>>45668228 #>>45668656 #>>45668714 #>>45668719 #>>45669554 #>>45670644 #>>45670900 #>>45671464 #>>45673127 #>>45674773 #
weli ◴[22 Oct 25 09:42 UTC] No.45666766[source]▶
When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation, people will rely on that and will chose your software based on that expectation.

You suddenly deciding that you won't be offering updated Docker images especially after a CVE and with no prior notice (except a hidden commit 4 days ago that updated the README) is approaching malicious-level actions.

If they truly cared about their community and still wanted to go through the decision of not offering public docker builds the responsible thing to do is offer a warning period, start adding notices in the repo (gh and docker) and create an easy migration path, even endorse or help some community members who would be fine with taking care of the public builds of the image.

But no, they introduced the change, made no public statement about it, waited for someone to notice this, offered no explanation and went silent. After a huge CVE. Irresponsible.

replies(10): >>45666850 #>>45666888 #>>45666945 #>>45666962 #>>45667042 #>>45667291 #>>45667585 #>>45668545 #>>45670863 #>>45676669 #
phatfish ◴[22 Oct 25 09:59 UTC] No.45666888[source]▶
This only inconveniences open source freeloaders. Maybe you can volunteer some time to build Docker images?
replies(4): >>45666960 #>>45667051 #>>45667104 #>>45674942 #
1. jraph ◴[22 Oct 25 10:23 UTC] No.45667051[source]▶
Rant about the concept of open source freeloaders: there's no such thing as open source freeloaders. If the license explicitly gives you the right to use the stuff for free, there's nothing wrong in using this right. While it would be the right thing to give money / otherwise support the projects you rely on, it's on the software developers who decide to give these rights (I also think it's the right thing to do though) to figure out the business model.

There's also nothing wrong in being upset about something you relied on disappearing overnight. If someone decides to provide something for free, they should give time for people to stop relying on this free stuff if they can.

However, I also believe you should own it if you decide to ever rely on prebuilt Docker images. More specifically, if you are relying on prebuilt Docker images, you are letting someone else decide on a part of your infra. And yes, this someone else can decide to stop providing this part of your infra overnight. This is on you.

I also don't find anything wrong in deciding to not provide binaries for your open source project, or to stop providing binaries, including docker images.

replies(1): >>45667146 #
2. supermatt ◴[22 Oct 25 10:36 UTC] No.45667146[source]▶
freeloader (OED): a person who takes advantage of others' generosity without giving anything in return.

Sounds exactly like freeloading to me. You may think of that term negatively, but it is exactly what it is.

replies(2): >>45667271 #>>45667388 #
3. jraph ◴[22 Oct 25 10:54 UTC] No.45667271[source]▶
We also find the Wiktionary definition [1]:

> One who does not contribute or pay appropriately; one who gets a free ride, etc. without paying a fair share.

Which I believe is a bit more generic (giving back might not be the only way of being fair).

> You may think of that term negatively

But the term carries a negative judgement, what's the point of this term otherwise? Without the judgemental part, you'd just say "using for free" or something.

The whole question is: is it fair to use open source software for free?

And I believe it is. Actually, this is stronger than this: I believe people should feel free to use free software for free, and should not be looked down for doing so. This is key for freedom 0 to be an actual thing. (I'm not set in stone in this position and would be happy change my mind on this though).

The notion of "giving back" can be discussed. I believe it is fair to get stuff from Person A for free and then helping B for free (later or earlier), in the hope that some person P will eventually help / have helped Person A for free for instance - this has the potential to provide everyone with a strong, helpful society and it would be even more enjoyable and reliable than a society that enforces pair to pair transactions.

Indeed, if someone always takes stuff for free and never contributes to anything, I would find this unfair (unless for some reason they can't contribute back, because of a disability or something). I would call this freeloading. Society cannot work like this. But you need the bigger picture to assess this.

When you start to try thinking about all this, the concepts of giving back, fairness, etc, it gets quite complicated. You also need to take in account the way society and the economical system works as a whole. What are the incentives, the motives, etc?

Basically, qualifying someone as a "open source freeloader" without context just because they use freedom 0 without paying is quite bold and might not be fair.

What if a company uses MinIO for free but provides some nice open source software?

Just don't judge someone too fast.

[1] https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/freeloader

4. fukka42 ◴[22 Oct 25 11:15 UTC] No.45667388[source]▶
What a weird take. Open source projects exist to be used. If you didn't want people to use it, it wouldn't be open source. As such the users are doing exactly what the creator wants: using their product. This helps the creator in many different ways.

Of course many creators are selfish. Once they have benefitted from everyone using their project they think: we want more. Then the rugpulls start. They think they no longer need their users, so now they can abuse them for additional profit.