I think Canonical does a pretty great job of this.

If I download an Ubuntu Server ISO, I get my download immediately, but the page has a nice prompt to register for a whitepaper to get the most out of my new server product.

If I download the Ubuntu Desktop ISO, I still get my download immediately, but additionally I see some nice prompts about donating to support their operations.

Everything about both flows inspires trust that they aren't trying to withhold my download for the sake of selling consulting services or soliciting donations.

> If I download the Ubuntu Desktop ISO, I still get my download immediately

Actually you have to click past a "please donate some money" nagging dialogue.

It may be a little annoying (at least if you download ISOs all the time), but it's obvious what they are asking for, not to mention why.

And it's definitely not dishonest, so it doesn't tarnish their reputation as a trust-worthy company.

no they changed it. you click on download now and you can donate money while downloading. (https://imgur.com/a/TMDYaX8)

It actually just changed (less than 24 hours ago). The download now starts while showing a donation page in the background.

I downloaded Ubuntu about a week ago, the download started while showing a donation page. The change is older than 24 hours ago.

It's almost as if companies roll out features to a certain percentage of users to test them before rolling them out to everyone.

Even MySQL community download has a small link at the bottom "No thanks, just start my download.", but no registration is possible despite two very huge buttons that just scream to sign up or sign in to an Oracle account.

The MySQL download page is how I ended up with 3 oracle accounts because I always forgot I had one. The small "no thanks just download" button is (was) very deceptive.

Same. At some point the link was very small and almost invisible.

Have you donated or signed up for those white papers so far? If so how many times/how much?

Desktop end user: I donated to Ubuntu, and to Debian via SPI, and a bit to OpenBSD when they had their funding wobble. Since 2015 I've been using Slackware and bought a DVD subscription (it turns out that the Slackware BDfL wasn't getting much of the income from the sale of the DVDs or merchandise so I donated again recently).

We are talking the price of a hipster coffee per fortnight here, but a few thousand people putting that on a recurring payment adds up.

For organisations like Docker I'm wondering if the RStudio model would be viable? The 'enterprise' subscription is something like $995 a year and can thus be budgeted for &c.

I sometimes do.

I also sometimes buy apps even if I'm not really sure I'll keep using them (sometimes just to encourage them to continue),

and keep subscribing to a newspaper even if I don't often read subscriber only content (since they sometimes have some great investigations && I want to support them but don't want to disable Adblock).

What I don't do:

- most monthly subscriptions that isn't payment for an actual service .

Well they did have mishaps like the Amazon search previously

> If they want to collect emails they need to offer something in addition.

whether i agree with the decision or not, i am confused by this sentiment. aren’t they offering docker, for free?

They're indeed giving away Docker for free, but part of the reason I hypothetically want Docker in the first place is that I trust the people distributing it to not do anything underhanded with their flagship tool's position as a product which runs thousands of other businesses' infrastructure.

There is a certain degree of trust involved in using a product like Docker since it is so critical to a businesses' operations, and I think a lot of people feel like using any kind of tracking (like mandatory registration to download) erodes that trust - we're forced to sit here and wonder what other restrictions might come in the future, or what other information they might start requiring for use of their product... and uncertainty never pairs well with infrastructure tooling that tends to be very important and very longlived within an organization.

So you have a complete attitude of entitlement that your preferred software must be delivered to you on your terms according to common convention. Nobody is permitted to act otherwise or we're gonna have ESR storm their office and take names. You're not a Berkeley grad are you?

Would you please not argue uncivilly like this on HN?

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Are we having database problems here?

Your thinly-veiled derision doesn't mask the fact that you are being willfully ignorant of the intent of the person you're replying to. You're not here from Reddit, are you?

It's not about entitlement, but it is about common convention. Docker's offering isn't unique enough for them to betray that convention.

The point of making something open source is to benefit from collaboration. Is not making the argument, "locking software distributions behind a login wall is harmful," simply a form of collaboration?

Please don't respond to a bad comment by breaking the site guidelines yourself. Your comment would be fine without the first paragraph.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Does offering the source not qualify as offering something? What is the closed source company offering that you are ok with giving your email away?

Really an honest question. I find Docker useful, and was put back also by the email/ login request, but why are they getting so much hate, compared to every other company, just because of this?

Because a closed-source company is open about being a for-profit commercial entity that is trying to make a dollar first and foremost.

Docker is "revolutionising infrastructure" or something. It doesn't have "make heaps of money" as it's primary goal. Partly this is because open source. There's an expectation that open source is also "for the greater good".

The cardinal sin of our times is hypocrisy. Being a money-worshiping greedy capitalist bastard is fine, as long as you're open that that's what you are. Pretending to be altruistic while actually being greedy will generate all the hate.

But it's not one or the other. It's perfectly legitimate to start a company with the goal of improving the world, while also needing to make some profit so you can continue to be a functioning company. No greed or bastards involved.

What does being open source and being altruistic have to do with each other? Personally, I think they enabled the login, so that new users would be able to use docker cloud, after installing docker, without needing to create an account. But still, being open source, allows you to verify security, be transparent about the product design/intentions, possibly extend or customize for your needs, etc. There is a lot of value there, that shouldn’t warrant so much hate.

> What does open source and being altruistic have to do with each other?

Would you spend time out of your day to contribute to software that requires your users to sign up for someone else’s spam list?

You may not feel this way, but think of downloading docker, as a non developer. You are probably following some tutorial, and really have no idea what you are actually doing. What if a container you are downloading is dangerous, or becomes dangerous. What if the version of the platform you have eventually becomes risky, due to a hack/0day? You are basically downloading an entire OS/execution environment, that makes it seamless to run an entire environment, while doing nothing. How would the company send an email/warn you etc, of some basic info that could really help you, or make your experience better? This isn’t som H&M mailing list to take your money. This is real, marketing aside, maybe they actually care?

Yes, absolutely. Would you like the cure to cancer if it meant you had to give your email address? One thing has nothing to do with the other.

I think contributors are going to compile it from source, to contribute ?

Force users to create an account, then advertise it as "now you don't need to create an account anymore"

Yeah...

> What does being open source and being altruistic have to do with each other?

The "open" in "open source" is about encouraging cooperation and collaboration. And not using lock-in or patents or walled gardens to obstruct competition.

If the altruistic aspect is still not obvious: many projects encourage a gift economy by accepting donations.

Astroturfing is really not compatible with what you called "be transparent about the product design/intentions"

I would only ask someone being so harsh, what they have personally contributed as a project directly or indirectly (supporting an existing project) before being as harsh or judge mental as this, especially toward a product like docker, that probably revolutionalized an industry. To clarify, I mean popularized an entire paradigm of running software, not necessarily the first.

I agree. There's nothing intrinsic to Open Source that means "for the greater good". And Open Source is beneficial even when done by greedy corporate bastards. There's even an argument that by crowdsourcing pull requests for free, an Open Source company is actively being greedy and capitalist.

However, the kind of mindset that enjoys being a greedy capitalist bastard finds it very very hard to accept the Open Source philosophy - it's all fear-based, "do unto others before they do unto you" and so "if they can rip my code off, they will", because that's what they'd do. I've experienced way too many hard conversations about open-sourcing code with this type of person.

So there tends to be a correlation between Open Source software and a co-operative mindset that would find this type of coercive marketing bullshit to be evil and reject it. This correlation becomes an expectation.

None of that is related, proven by the simple fact that Docker and other open-source for-profit companies exist and have already contributed significantly to the industry.

This was a bad marketing-driven move, but that's all it is.