@Gliding9426 Yeah, NodeBB can fork itself and maintain its own state if you prefer not to use separate tooling. 👍
NodeBB Container Images
I wanted to provide an update to my robot-written post from the other day regarding NodeBB and the Docker Hub.
On the 14th of March, we received an email from Docker which laid out in plain terms that we were on a plan that was to-be-sunset, and that all of our data was to be deleted.
If you don’t upgrade to a paid subscription, Docker will retain your organization data for 30 days, after which it will be subject to deletion. During that time, you will maintain access to any images in your public repositories, though rate limitations will apply. At any point during the 30-day period, you can restore access to your organization account if you upgrade to a paid subscription. Visit our FAQ for more information.
Looking into this, it does appear that the NodeBB organization is on the "Docker Free Team" plan. We've been using the Docker Hub as a means to distribute our images as it seems to be the de facto gathering point for people using Docker. There's an implicitly guarantee of quality since the NodeBB image is published by NodeBB, the organization.
So, it seems like all of our historical images are getting deleted. Bummer!
N.B. A developer relations representative from Docker posted later on Hacker News that this didn't mean the "images" would be deleted — but only "organization data" — since that wasn't explicitly specified in the blurb above. Did you catch that in the italicized blurb above? I sure didn't. Do you believe it? I sure don't.
Is this fair?
That's a rather nuanced question with many facets. I will simply point out that the Docker organization has provided their registry for free for anyone who wanted, and it was (and still is) their perogative to do so. It also means that should they withdraw that generosity, that's also within their perogative, despite how it affects the open-source community at-large.
There's no onus on Docker to provide their services for free, and it is difficult for companies to find a pathway toward profitability, especially when costs escalate without a corresponding match in revenue.
Isn't Docker supported by NodeBB?
Not officially, no. NodeBB's stance on Docker has been passive. I like to maintain that support for the Docker image (and the
Dockerfilefound in our repo) is on a community-supported basis only.
The reason this is is because the main developers of NodeBB (@baris and myself) don't use Docker. It would be unfair to you, the end user, to have us try to support Docker, because we would be pretty abysmal at it. We've chosen to dedicate our time and resources elsewhere, and it does mean that our Docker implementation is minimal, perhaps lackluster.
The second part of this is that I personally (and I very specifically do not use the "company we" here, as this is my personal opinion) am not sold on containerization. I certainly understand the convenience benefits, and the security benefits, but I consider this an abstraction that actively harms low-level understanding of how software interacts with an operating system. For the same reason I eschew front-end frameworks from a career perspective, I am hesitant on going all-in on Docker or other related technologies for similar reasons. I will not go in-depth about this for now, but reserve the right to blather on about it at a later date
I also realize that Docker is a very popular tool. The fact that it has become a household term for so many developers is a rather strong signal that containerization is The Real Deal. It is very possible that there may be a fundamental shift in the operations space away from pure ops and towards DevOps in the future that will necessitate action on our part. However, I don't think we are there right now, and I feel that this move from Docker may have set this line of thinking back for some time to come.
Isn't NodeBB open-source? Can't you apply for an open-source account?
Yes, and no.
NodeBB is an open-source product. Our code is hosted on GitHub (thanks Microsoft!), and licensed under the GPL v3 license.
At the same time, we have chosen to make this our livelihood. @baris and I have managed (with @psychobunny, for many years) to build a forum platform that can sustain our families, and allow us to spend at least part of our time on the open-source aspect of NodeBB. We offer professional consultation, theme design, custom plugins (both private and public), and a SaaS platform where you can have us host and maintain your own NodeBB, for a fee.
Docker considers this a violation of their open-source qualification criteria:
Not have a pathway to commercialization. Your organization must not seek to make a profit through services or by charging for higher tiers. Accepting donations to sustain your efforts is permissible.
They have chosen to support the most vulnerable open-source developers, the ones who contribute and maintain open-source projects just for the benefit to the world, and that's commendable. We do not fit that narrow scope, and that's fine too.
What happens now?
Docker wants us to pay to use the Docker Hub, and we have decided not to for the aforementioned reasons above.
Community members have already shared their thoughts with us, and are even helping us transition away from Docker Hub. We really appreciate them! We have no vested interest in Docker, and with regards to containerization of NodeBB, we will go where the prevailing winds of public opinion take us. Whether that be the GitHub Container Registry, or somewhere else.
There are users whose NodeBB installs are maintained via the images on Docker Hub. We currently don't have guidance for those users, but we will in the coming days/weeks. If you are one of those users, what's important to note now is that you can no longer rely on those images being around in perpetuity.
This is an issue that — as of writing — is currently still in flux. Public opinion is heated and so are the responses from Docker.