Re:Docker Apology
by HelloNurse on Saturday March 18, 2023 @07:23AM
(#35208106)
Personally, I expect what I paid for from a free service, and I consider depending on gifts and uncertain platforms a reckless risk.
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.
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.