←back to thread

MinIO stops distributing free Docker images

(github.com)
672 points LexSiga | 1 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. crote ◴[22 Oct 25 20:47 UTC] No.45674942[source]▶
It also inconveniences people who aren't freeloaders - or are you forgetting about the community?

People submitting PRs aren't freeloaders: they are building the product for you. People filing bug reports aren't freeloaders: they are helping you solve the bugs in your code. People writing blog posts about setting up MinIO aren't freeloaders: they are writing documentation for you. People holding talks about it at conferences aren't freeloaders: they are essentially doing free marketing for you. Even someone leaving a "thumbs up" on a Github issue isn't a freeloader anymore!

MinIO is also screwing over those active contributors, who are volunteering their time to improve the value of MinIO's product. That's not just "no longer helping freeloaders", that is "actively hurting the community".

Besides, I'm sure the community has plenty of people who would be more than happy to volunteer time to build Docker images. Do you really think MinIO is going to let them publish it under the official "minio/minio" name so the community can still benefit from it without MinIO having to "support freeloaders", or do you think there could be an ulterior motive behind nuking the image - such as pushing people to the paid version?