←back to thread

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

(github.com)
672 points LexSiga | 9 comments | 22 Oct 25 06:17 UTC | HN request time: 0.248s | 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 #
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 #
Hendrikto ◴[22 Oct 25 10:22 UTC] No.45667042[source]▶
> When you always published and built Docker images for the public you are creating an expectation

That expectation does not entitle anybody to anything though.

> people will rely on that and will chose your software based on that expectation

That is their decision. Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody.

> You suddenly deciding that you won't be offering updated Docker images […] is approaching malicious-level actions.

I really don’t get this entitlement. “You are still doing unpaid work I benefit from, but you used to do more, therefore you are malicious.” is something I really cannot get behind.

replies(10): >>45667160 #>>45667230 #>>45667367 #>>45667662 #>>45668153 #>>45668737 #>>45669872 #>>45670303 #>>45670375 #>>45673621 #
imiric ◴[22 Oct 25 11:47 UTC] No.45667662[source]▶
> Without any contract or promise, there is no obligation to anybody.

When a restaurant which you've been going to for years one day decides to serve you your favorite meal with a bit of poop on the side, do you not have the right to be upset about it? They're not under any obligation to serve you meals you're happy with. There was no contract or promise. The fact you're paying for their service doesn't buy you these rights either. Those are just the terms of service both parties have agreed to.

Similarly, open source software is much more than a license. There is a basic social contract of not being an asshole to users of your product, which is an unwritten rule not just in software and industry in general, but in society as a whole. The free software movement is an extension of this mindset, and focuses on building software for the benefit of everyone, not just those who happen to pay for it, or those who meet your specific criteria. Claiming you support this philosophy, while acting against it, is hypocritical, and abusive towards people who do believe in it. And your point is that that people who complain about this are entitled? Give me a break.

If you want to place restrictions on how your software is used and who gets to enjoy it, that's fine, but make those terms explicit by choosing the appropriate license and business model from the start. Stop abusing OSS as a marketing tactic.[1]

[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45666757

replies(5): >>45667745 #>>45668052 #>>45668120 #>>45670103 #>>45676580 #
Ekaros ◴[22 Oct 25 11:59 UTC] No.45667745[source]▶
Why isn't there similar expectations for users of Open source? That is be ready to take over yourself if maintainers do not want to do something anymore? Do not ask or demand anything. Do not expect anything but the code. To understand that you can not expect or be entitled to anything. And celebrate what you get just now.

With this the solution becomes obvious. You select piece of technology to build on you are fully and ready to take over it for purposes you want to use for it. The code is shared and you should not expect anything more.

replies(3): >>45667996 #>>45668198 #>>45669807 #
1. Eisenstein ◴[22 Oct 25 12:26 UTC] No.45667996[source]▶
I think you are digging in a little too hard here. If someone offers a capability that you don't have, and you build that into something you use, then saying that they should be ready for it to go away at any time and be happy to have had it, seems a little too much.

If there had never been an offer, they would not have built around it, and would have found another solution and, even if harder or more inconvenient, learned how to use that and built around that. Sure, no one is obligated to continue to provide them with the product, but saying that they are being unreasonable for expecting a little bit of warning time before having support pulled is a bit unrealistic.

I know we have done the metaphors to death already, but let's try another one: imagine if someone gave you a ride to work every day for years and one morning they didn't show up and you couldn't get in touch with them. You should have had a backup plan, and you shouldn't have depended on them, but it will take you a while to find a car and rearrange your schedule and learn how to drive or whatever you have to do, and all they had to do was notify you a month or two earlier that they wouldn't be able to do it anymore.

replies(2): >>45669590 #>>45670203 #
2. rapnie ◴[22 Oct 25 14:22 UTC] No.45669590[source]▶
Metaphor I often see in FOSS. You are this hobby painter sitting every morning on Monmartre square in Paris, painting. It attracts people's eyes. They love your work and you become a sensation, going viral. Instagram influencers from around the world just need you in their picture, they say. You just shrug and paint. One day you got bored of Monmartre. Of pleasing the crowds. You want rest, a spot in nature to paint in peace. When the crowd learns, an angry oproar bursts out, and people demand you stick to your familiar spot, or else.
replies(2): >>45669603 #>>45671900 #
3. Eisenstein ◴[22 Oct 25 14:23 UTC] No.45669603[source]▶
Mine was much better.
4. geodel ◴[22 Oct 25 15:01 UTC] No.45670203[source]▶
Huh, even employment nowadays doesn't come with month or two notice from employers. And here some one giving things gratis need to issue notice lest you might be inconvenienced.
replies(1): >>45670655 #
5. Eisenstein ◴[22 Oct 25 15:30 UTC] No.45670655[source]▶
Do you actually want everyone to treat everyone else like employers treat their employees? I don't think that is as good of an argument as you think it is.
6. imiric ◴[22 Oct 25 16:52 UTC] No.45671900[source]▶
If the painter doesn't enjoy painting in public, then they should've picked a quiet spot in nature in the first place.

And yet, most people who do decide to share their work in public, directly or indirectly reap the rewards of it. They get exposure and recognition, which in turn opens many doors. I'm not saying that exposure alone puts food on the table, but it's certainly not entirely negative. Many people would envy to be in that position.

Your analogy is akin to any public figure enjoying their work, but not enjoying the attention. That certainly happens, but the attention, and all its negative aspects, comes with the territory. That attention might even be partly responsible for getting them to where they are. People in such line of work must learn to live with their choices. Not be surprised when their audience has certain demands and expectations, which may or may not be within reason.

replies(1): >>45672630 #
7. sarchertech ◴[22 Oct 25 17:46 UTC] No.45672630{3}[source]▶
> If the painter doesn't enjoy painting in public, then they should've picked a quiet spot in nature in the first place.

Sure but maybe the changed their mind or just got burned out.

replies(1): >>45672731 #
8. imiric ◴[22 Oct 25 17:53 UTC] No.45672731{4}[source]▶
And that's fine too. Someone else may or may not continue their work for the benefit of the community. They can be honest about it, and most people will be understanding and thankful for their work.

But that is not what happened in the case of MinIO, and many other projects. They deliberately removed features from the software, and made it more difficult to use. They prioritized working on their commercial product, and used the "community edition" as a marketing funnel for it. This is what I'm objecting to.

In any case, I've made my point clear, and don't like repeating myself. Cheers!

replies(1): >>45673160 #
9. sarchertech ◴[22 Oct 25 18:24 UTC] No.45673160{5}[source]▶
>Someone else may or may not continue their work for the benefit of the community.

Someone still can. They can't revoke the AGPL license of previous versions.

>They prioritized working on their commercial product

It's a company, not a non-profit. What else would you expect them to do?

I'm less understanding when a VC backed company does things like this, but many times its just a matter of "we were trying to make money by doing X. X is no longer working, so we're moving to Y".

I've also seen hostile mobs form when very small companies or individuals decide to start charging for things they used to give away for free, so it's not just that they are a VC backed company here.