Since Docker is in a situation where docker itself is just not what most of us really think about.

There are likely other examples they have tried but likely just didn't notice. I think the reaction is perfectly valid given the companies track record. Now they are charging for something that was once free without really explaining any benefits? But they added that artificial limitation after release. I was perfectly happy with what it was currently doing and had no desire to update. Which spawned companies like AWS to announce their own free alternative/mirror.Īt some point with in the last few months they made it so without paying I was forced to update docker desktop or constantly have to click snooze. Last year (?) they started limiting pulls from docker hub unless you paid up. They tried to go the support route like RedHat and others, but who needed just Docker support? Especially when there orchestration layer was basically DOA with k8s available. If docker desktop was originally subscription based or they said that they wanted to make it subscription based later than the reaction would be very different.īut Docker as a company has failed multiple times now to attempt to make money and this feels like a hostage situation by taking away a tool that many now rely on.

My problem is less that it is happening but how we got here.

Doceri desktop alternative