> it's extortion

That's a wild take for "somebody provided something for free but decided they don't want to anymore".

Sucks for you, looks like you have to do your job yourself now.

Reminds me of a joke, where there was a beggar sitting on a street next to a certain office, and one man has been giving him a coin every time he went to work or was going home. That continued for a while, until one day the man says to the beggar - "you know, I've been giving you a coin twice a day for a while now, but now I am getting married, it's an expensive thing so I can't give as much anymore, I only will be giving you a coin once a day from now on". And the beggar cries out: "Look at this putz, he's getting married and now I have to feed his whole family!"

▲

derangedHorse 4 days ago | parent [-]

This scenario is more like if the man tipped you when you never needed it, you used the money to buy something, and then he forced you to work for it. You never would have spent the tipped money if they didn't give it to you, and the fact they did with the intention of asking for it back is annoying.

In this bitnami case, I would have just built these images myself but they offered public images accessible from dockerhub. There's 0 reason to change the existing registry besides intentionally breaking builds. The security narrative they try to spin about why they will delete the legacy registry is also laughable. As if the consumers of those images are incapable of assessing the risk of using legacy images themselves.

	▲	smsm42 3 days ago \| parent [-]
		If it's trivial to build images yourself, then just build it and be thankful for all the utility you earned by deferring doing the task till later - time is money, very literally, the whole point of credit is time-shifting money. You were allowed to time-shift work, and for free. But the expectation you could time-shift it forever is not based on any promise - they were always free to revoke the option, and now they did. If it's a trivial task, make your own one - you could even do the society a service and put it up on the docker repo.

▲

asmor 5 days ago | parent | prev [-]

What do you mean, that's the business model more than half the VC-funded startups now. Provide something for free or near free, wait until your customer is dependent on you and/or consolidate into at least an oligopoly and then put the thumbscrews on.

I find that to be a pretty dishonest business model. I don't have any Bitnami images to replace, but I know a lot of people who do without ever having made that choice - and their bosses aren't going to pay Broadcom for the most part either. So you end up with overworked developers that now hate Broadcom and/or a whole lot of deployments that just break or never get updated. The number of people going "I can just switch over to the archive image, whatever" on the K8s subreddit alone is concerning.

	▲	conor- 5 days ago \| parent \| next [-]
		The Bitnami images and helm charts are just convenient repackaging of things that are already freely (gratis) available. There's nothing stopping you from still deploying Kafka or Redis, etc. into your k8s cluster without using the Bitnami helm chart or building your own charts. I think that's the point of above of "now you have to do your job" There's an evaluation that takes place when choosing to use something as an engineer, and the writing should have been on the wall the moment that Broadcom bought Bitrock to start planning to reduce dependency on those things.
	▲	ToucanLoucan 5 days ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> What do you mean, that's the business model more than half the VC-funded startups now. Provide something for free or near free, wait until your customer is dependent on you and/or consolidate into at least an oligopoly and then put the thumbscrews on. You skipped the part where you bankrupt your competition in the space who can't afford to hemorrhage cash they don't have like a VC-backed startup can, hoover up all the customers, then charge more than the old guard industry did in the first damn place for a worse version of the same service, while also paradoxically paying any workers needed to provide said service even less than they were making before.