[vertis]

Deleting 'organization data' absolutely read that they would delete everything. Changing direction and back pedaling with a non-apology is borderline insulting.

I understand the need to make money as a company, but it really is biting the hand that fed messing with open source maintainers

[pgwhalen]

I have no horse in this race, but fwiw, I can see how this mistake would be made honestly. Organization data could be easily refer to just the metadata of the organization, and depending on how the product is structured[1], could feel quite different from public images.

[1] Disclaimer: I don't know how the product is structured.

[nikolay]

They really think we're idiots!

[brianwawok]

Marketing people try to explain away mistakes with doublespeak. Isn’t it grand? They keep digging deeper at this point.

[jrumbut]

"Actually" is not a great word to use in the context of an apology.

[bombcar]

We have learned that public images are NOT organization data!

[golem14]

With the organization data gone, will there be a way to update the retained images, like security fixes etc? If not, then this could become very dangerous.

[mbreese]

Really, if they delete the org data and images can’t be updated, it might just be better to delete them all just to avoid these inevitable issues (maybe with a longer delay). Just rip the band-aid off and be done with it.

[goodpoint]

Relying on a free service for important work? Maybe they are right.

[dns_snek]

Silly us, I suppose we should stop relying on APT/RPM/what-have-you Linux package mirrors, NPM, NuGet, PyPi, Hex, RubyGems, Crates, ... too.

[goodpoint]

No. There's a huge difference between a volunteer driven organization and a for-profit company.

Their goals are completely different. The latter is not there to give you services. It's there to maximize shareholder value.

It's sad to see that HN can't even tell the difference anymore.

[dns_snek]

Neither npm nor NuGet are volunteer driven organizations. npm is owned by Github, NuGet is owned by Microsoft, and I'm sure that there are dozens of other examples behind many key pieces of free dev&ops infrastructure that are owned by for-profit companies.

Are they allowed to do it? Of course! Are we allowed them to call them out on their bait & switch tactics? Of course, what else are we supposed to do?

Just because something is common, like building a user base based on implicit promises and then pulling the rug once the service reaches critical mass, doesn't mean it should be accepted and normalized.

[goodpoint]

> npm is owned by Github

And GitHub is owned by Microsoft, duh. And they don't do this stuff out of the kindness of their hearts.

> what else are we supposed to do?

How about not falling for the same trap again and again instead?

> ... pulling the rug once the service reaches critical mass, doesn't mean it should be accepted and normalized.

Then don't sit on that rug.

[nikolay]

We all rely on many free services and code. And, by the way, I'm a paying customer - I don't use their services but do this to support the pioneer!