I agree. We do have mirrors setup, we do have observability into the images we use across the infrastructure. This has concluded we only have a minor issue with this move, wonderfully.
But, just butting users with "Just do this good practice" or "Just do this NOW" still is an uphill battle and will usually not cause the best effect with users. We're currently doing this while moving our 2-3 artifactories into one. If we just shut this stuff off because "You should have more control with your builds", there'd be a riot.
And sure, some people will still fail the migration no matter what. But such time frames are still punishing any but the most professional companies.
That's all in all the work I consider a good operations team to do. Make a stink, provide a migration path, be noticeable, and push people off of the old stuff. Just breaking things because "you should have" is burning trust by the mile.
This is not an accurate characterization of what's generating the outrage
The Path to Outrage is actually:
1. Launch HN with MPL licensing, "we <3 Open Source!11"
2. (a few moments later) Onoz, engineers cost money and that sweet VC juice dries up
3. echo BuSL > LICENSE; git commit -am"License update"; blog about "safeguarding our customers" or whatever
4. shocked pikachu face when users, who starting using the open source product, and maybe even contributed bug fixes or suggestions on how to make the community product better, lose their minds about having the rug pulled out from under them
Contrast this with:
1. Launch HN, asking for money to pay for the product
2. Potential customers will evaluate if the product adds enough value for the money requested
There is no step 3 containing outrage because everyone was on the same page from the beginning
I agree. We do have mirrors setup, we do have observability into the images we use across the infrastructure. This has concluded we only have a minor issue with this move, wonderfully.
But, just butting users with "Just do this good practice" or "Just do this NOW" still is an uphill battle and will usually not cause the best effect with users. We're currently doing this while moving our 2-3 artifactories into one. If we just shut this stuff off because "You should have more control with your builds", there'd be a riot.
And sure, some people will still fail the migration no matter what. But such time frames are still punishing any but the most professional companies.
That's all in all the work I consider a good operations team to do. Make a stink, provide a migration path, be noticeable, and push people off of the old stuff. Just breaking things because "you should have" is burning trust by the mile.
So much of this industry runs off of good will.
Free software. Free docker images/registries.
Then when a company is like "Hey, um we need to make money", every body gets upset.
We need a more substainable way forward. I can't tell you what that looks like though.
This is not an accurate characterization of what's generating the outrage
The Path to Outrage is actually:
1. Launch HN with MPL licensing, "we <3 Open Source!11"
2. (a few moments later) Onoz, engineers cost money and that sweet VC juice dries up
3. echo BuSL > LICENSE; git commit -am"License update"; blog about "safeguarding our customers" or whatever
4. shocked pikachu face when users, who starting using the open source product, and maybe even contributed bug fixes or suggestions on how to make the community product better, lose their minds about having the rug pulled out from under them
Contrast this with:
1. Launch HN, asking for money to pay for the product
2. Potential customers will evaluate if the product adds enough value for the money requested
There is no step 3 containing outrage because everyone was on the same page from the beginning
2 replies →