The third sentence in their apology is "This impacted less than 2% of our users." What is that supposed to convey? It feels like a handwave.
'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.'
'We're sorry we mistreated you, look how small you are to us.'
Why not just release multiple statements and links?
"Click here for customized PR statement if you are a open source developer"
"Click here for customized PR statement if you are a closed source developer"
"Click here for customized PR statement if you are an executive who can't code"
"Click here for customized PR statement if you are a billionaire who invested in Docker but secretly don't know what it is"
etc.
For example if the user has a screen resolution of three 4K monitors side by side, using Linux, and coming from a Silicon Valley IP address, they are probably a developer. If they have the screen resolution of an iPad Pro and a New York IP address they are probably an executive on the go. The HTML5 accelerometer API might also say something about whether they're reading your press release in bed, while sitting, or standing. Use ChatGPT to reword the press release appropriately.
I don't think so. The quote above is what they say on that page, and I think that is a pretty useless metric. It affects 2% of all Docker Hub users, 100% of all Free Team users.
> We’d also like to clarify that public images will only be removed from Docker Hub if their maintainer decides to delete them.
> Will open source images I rely on get deleted?
> Not by Docker. Public images will only disappear if the maintainer of the image decides to proactively delete it from Docker Hub. If the maintainer takes no action, we will continue to distribute their public images.
People may have thought they were affected, which is what they seem to be apoligising for.
They should allow a TEAM->PERSONAL conversion for any open source account that doesn't qualify to be "Docker sponsored." But really this is a communications fail more than anything.
This only ever applied to the *Team* accounts. I have a paid non-team/personal account, but I am also aware that I could have a free personal account if I didn't need private repositories.
In other words, they weren't clear enough in their communication, which is what they're apologizing for.
But the internet outrage mob is going to yell about the evil of The Man no matter what I say, so I don't know why I bother...
They have public images here: https://hub.docker.com/u/httptoolkit
The original announcement said:
> If you don't upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that period you will maintain access to any of your public images.
That sounds a lot like the public images were subject to deletion. At the very least, subject to being frozen in time and not updated/updateable, which can be worse in some cases.
To me this "This impacted less than x%" business is more of a classic Apple damage control PR statement, designed to convey to the whole userbase, "You almost definitely aren't affected, it's just a tiny number of whiners making all this fuss, and look how small they are!"
99% it is "the number of accounts affected" and not anything to do with number of downloads of images hosted there.
They could choose not to share any data, which is what most companies default to.
You're complaining about something so small as if they aren't handling this entire thing beautifully at this point. They noticed their mistake, and corrected it swiftly to keep the community from bifurcating. What else do you want, exactly?
There's a world of difference between "This impacted less than 2% of our users." and "This impacted about 2% of our users."
The first implies that they have up to 2% of users which they don't respect, and undermines their apology.
I agree that it's good that they responded quickly, and I know there's a tradeoff between fast and perfect.
No there isn't. This is entirely subjective and you're acting like they said "Fuck our customers" when they just shared data. Anything you want to imply beyond that says more about you than it does about any part of Docker.
> The first implies that they have up to 2% of users which they don't respect, and undermines their apology.
Where does this implication come from? Why is Docker not given the benefit of the doubt when they are already extending an olive branch...? This isn't Microsoft.
I guess if you want to change things, you should shoot for a position in PR at docker. Otherwise, you look like a rube for acting as though they "could have done better with one sentence." I bet you're fun at parties.
Customers who are running businesses and knowingly breaking the ToS? I'm not sure why businesses like Docker aren't allowed to defend their revenue.
It's actually pretty hilarious how many of you are coming out of the woodwork to attack Docker, they are not the enemy in any way, shape or form and if they disappear you're gonna miss them.
But, as a business whose prosperity depends on the goodwill of masses of users, Docker can and should "defend their revenue" in a way that minimizes collateral damage in the form of
1) gratuitous bullshit, untrustworthiness, lack of transparency, and perceived evil intentions (e.g. their second announcement)
2) technical uncertainty and security risks (for orphaned images of uncertain status)
3) inconvenience, without additional revenue, to the vast majority of users that aren't included in this the shakedown
There are rational businesses and there are businesses that drive them away their customers; in the long term, the former tend to "defend their revenue" much better.
An Olive branch is, "We fucked up, sorry about that, this is what we are going to do, or not going to do moving forward to fix the issue.
Fuckery is "We apologize but it was only poor communication and it only impacted a small and insignificant part of the community".
This isn't an Olive branch. Its damage control with an attempt to change perception. Its not even remotely close to trying to right a wrong.
Its wild how the same people will complain that some corporate missive is completely content-free while at the same time punishing any attempt at earnest communication by scouring the missive for a raised edge to take offense at.
This is an example of my point actually - these types of posts are magnets for people that cannot be pleased.