←back to thread

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

(github.com)
672 points LexSiga | 2 comments | 22 Oct 25 06:17 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source
Show context
cduzz ◴[22 Oct 25 12:58 UTC] No.45668391[source]▶
I haven't used minio in years, and when I did I only fiddled around with it, but my recollection of it is that it's about the simplest build chain imaginable. Install modern golang, build minio, get single binary.

Anyone relying on an opensource tool like minio, needs to look at:

  * organization supporting it
  * the license
  * the build chain
  * who else uses it?
  * the distribution artifact needed for production.
Once you've looked at that you can decide "is this an anchor I want to handcuff myself to and hope the anchor won't jump into the icy blue deep taking me and my dreams with it?"

If the org behind it ever decides to rugpull/elastic you, what're you gonna do? At least with something like minio, if they're still distributing the source it's trivial to build (and if you can't build it you should evaluate if you're in a position to rely on it).

Let's look at other cool open source things like SigNoz which distribute only docker artifacts (as far as I remember, anyhow) -- if they were to rugpull that people relying on it would be totally lost at sea.

This isn't to say that this isn't poor behavior on minio's part, but I feel like they've been signaling us for a while that they're looking to repay their VC patrons.

replies(2): >>45668452 #>>45670869 #
goku12 ◴[22 Oct 25 15:44 UTC] No.45670869[source]▶
They have also removed the web UI and stopped updating the documentation for the community edition. The former is not extremely serious as the community can easily replace it. The latter is arguably the worst among all the changes that we know of. While they do redirect community documentation towards its enterprise counterpart, it's becoming clear that the differences in the community edition won't be addressed at all. That will make MinIO community edition less viable over time.

Overall, it's pretty clear that they don't view the OSS users kindly or want them around. I'm pretty sure that they would drop the entire community edition if they could do so legally and without much fuzz. You can expect more like this in the future. So this story shouldn't be seen simply as the loss of a docker image.

replies(1): >>45673915 #
1. cduzz ◴[22 Oct 25 19:23 UTC] No.45673915[source]▶
Right -- I think it's quite clear that if you're relying on the free minio you need to look elsewhere or peer up with some others and fork it.

And any adoption of a critical piece of software needs to have a risk calculus associated with it of "what if they get bought by CA, invaded by Russia and murdered, murder their wife and go to jail, or dedicate their remaining time on earth to writing haiku?"

Both open source software and commercially supported software have risks and mitigations. I'd argue that you're actually safer with open source software since you can pick up and keep running it, but that's not a trivial undertaking.

replies(1): >>45675146 #
2. goku12 ◴[22 Oct 25 21:06 UTC] No.45675146[source]▶
> I'd argue that you're actually safer with open source software since you can pick up and keep running it, but that's not a trivial undertaking.

I agree with that. It's just that I find it very annoying that these companies turn against the OSS (user) community after they've gained enough market share by taking advantage of the community's trust and network. This discussion thread itself is full of people calling the users 'entitled'. That's some level of gaslighting! The real question is, how much would these projects have succeeded if they had started under the same terms as the ones they've now switched to? If the answer is 'not very much', then that means the community added significant value to the product, which these companies are now refusing to share and running away with. These companies are the entitled ones, besides being deceptive and dishonest.

The case with MinIO is not as egregious as the others we have seen - elastic, for example. MinIO is still under an open source license. But their decisions to let the community edition documentation rot and to remove the web ui make it very clear that they're trying to make the community edition as unviable as possible without having to take the heat for going all out proprietary or source available. Does this tactic seem familiar? This exactly what Google does with AOSP. Slowly remove and replace its OSS parts with proprietary software and gradually kill the project. Again, it's deceptive, dishonest and distasteful.

Both free software and open source software have a tradition of not excluding anybody from participating in the process, community and contributions. But looking at how much certain companies damage the trust and fracture the community for some extra profit, it might be a good idea to start asking if they should even be given the opportunity to do so.