←back to thread

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

(github.com)
672 points LexSiga | 6 comments | 22 Oct 25 06:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.014s | source | bottom
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 #
Klemoniono ◴[22 Oct 25 10:41 UTC] No.45667178[source]▶
Company makes Open Source. Open Source community enbraces it, helps it to become the defacto standard.

Company does a rug pull because they are unable to make a proper business out of it and leaves the community hanging dry.

Removing the container image build step, which was ALREADY THERE, and doing this internaly only, is the gatekeeping they are now doing.

Its like 0 effort to provide these images.

And yes pricing pages like this is always the same: You don't get any deal below 1k / month minimum because they have some pre-sales people and a payment pipeline which doesn't work for anything small or startup like.

Somehow i don't get MinIO anyway. They got over 100 Million of investment for an S3 system. Its basically a done product. Its also a typical 'invest once build it once, keep it running' thing which can easily be replicated with a little bit of investment from other companies.

I have no clue how they ever got valued over 100 Million.

replies(1): >>45667359 #
1. hansmayer ◴[22 Oct 25 11:10 UTC] No.45667359[source]▶
> Its like 0 effort to provide these images.

I love it when entitled folks both expect to use someone else's work AND immediately downplay someone else's effort (no, I am not affiliated with Min.IO, just saying if you are scared of building a docker image yourself, maybe you should not downplay someone else's effort).

replies(1): >>45668310 #
2. Klemoniono ◴[22 Oct 25 12:52 UTC] No.45668310[source]▶
I'm not scared at all and could care less about building the image myself.

I'm also not 'entitled' because i'm doing this for another open source project we are now maintaining.

Just to be clear: THEY already have to maintain the docker image and it makes it less secure for EVERYONE if the community now needs to either find a new github repo/company building it for them or everyone has to build it themselves because they do not trust random companies.

There is a difference between having the official Min.IO image with a stamp of approval vs. forked repos with their version of the same image. The only thing fixing this kind of issue is a fingerprint and build caches.

They are removing the official container images because 1. this is the magic source of running your software in helm charts etc. so now you need to act 2. in some companies you are not allowed to use random container images

And you are complelty ignoring my arguments. Its not entitlement if a companies product becomes the industry standard due to Open Source and then doing a rug pull like this.

replies(2): >>45669085 #>>45670394 #
3. alexandre_m ◴[22 Oct 25 13:46 UTC] No.45669085[source]▶
> makes it less secure for EVERYONE if the community now needs to either find a new github repo/company

Correct, and that's the most worrying aspect.

4. hansmayer ◴[22 Oct 25 15:13 UTC] No.45670394[source]▶
> Just to be clear: THEY already have to maintain the docker image and it makes it less secure for EVERYONE if the community now needs to either find a new github repo/company building it for them or everyone has to build it themselves because they do not trust random companies.

Wrong - it would be less secure if they did not share the source code and the Dockerfile along that too. As long as you take care to regularly update, where is the problem?

replies(1): >>45670501 #
5. Klemoniono ◴[22 Oct 25 15:19 UTC] No.45670501{3}[source]▶
So just to be clear, they publish the docker image, they have an Github action which is basically free for them to build and release it into a free registry but they don't do it.

So i setup everything to do this on my github with their code and publish it on my package.

And you don't think this is stupid?

The problem is the critisim how they act and even if they release everything and its just building the image, you can't trust another source to upload the image someone else has build with this file. So now everyone has to build the same image.

replies(1): >>45674052 #
6. hansmayer ◴[22 Oct 25 19:33 UTC] No.45674052{4}[source]▶
The scenario you described is mainly just benefiting you. Whether Min.IO loses or wins something based on this decision, will remain to be seen. In either case they don't owe it either to me or to you to provide a built image, especially as they continue to provide the source, including the Dockerfile. In either case if in your setup you are not able to rebuild an image off of a Dockerfile, your setup is worth rethinking. Not to mention that on the security side, it's quite irresponsible to depend on an image from a public repo, without at least pulling it through an internal artifact management system with vulnerability scanning.
replies(1): >>45675993 #