What did this mean in that case? That the images will continue to exist but the maintainers cannot update them? They'll just become orphaned?
"During that period" refers to the 30-day period. During that time, the images are accessible. After the 30-day period, they will still be pull-able, but not able to be updated.
Any smart FOSS maintainer will find alternate hosting...
I think that’s obviously the point of the whole exercise — pony up or leave. They’re just doing it in an annoying manner
In other words, the public repos are being archived. If I was a maintainer responsible for providing up-to-date and secure images, then I think it would indeed by my duty to delete them, if I am no longer able to update them.
Specifically (emphasis mine):
> During that time, you will maintain access to any images in your public repositories
So, the logical conclusion, which literally everyone else on HN had, was that after that time you will lose access to images in your public repositories; access meaning "we can get to the image" in this context, because that's what people f-n care about.
Not to mention the other part, about how Docker will still have images available for pull that can't be changed, for which there is no way to "forward" user pulls elsewhere if the developer chose to not pay the fee; so in affect you're capturing their user base with old software and almost no way to know that.
"DevRel" at Docker failed this week. Just own up to it, take the hit, and don't be evasive. Evasiveness is shady and no one trusts that bullshit.
Keeping them read only is literally the worst solution. Old images that can't be updated and accrue security flaws, all while uninformed users see address still work and assume nothing needs to be changed.
Your corporation picked literally worst way to do it.
I disagree. The worst way would be to make a blanket decision for all projects on their behalf.
This way they let the project maintainer decide.
For projects that don't get updated, it's better to leave them where they are.
For projects that are changing the maintainers can choose to delete (or move to a paid / OSS plan).
Choice is good, and giving that choice to maintainers is good.
The final act if goodness (and I'm not clear yet) is whether maintainers will be able to delete an image at some point in the future. Like say a year from now. Possibly by creating a paid account, and "reclaiming" that image.
Personally I agree that your advice to delete them may be the best option for most maintainers who have decided to leave. And they currently have the ability to do that.
Hence my assertion that your statement is incorrect.
>pull-able
To any reasonable average person, these mean the same thing.
