Pure anecdata: the fact that this is happening at all has us (at work) looking for alternatives. Once we finalize on the best one we'll swap out MinIO permanently. I can't imagine we're the only ones, but who knows?
If you use this tech, perhaps you could explain what the real issue is behind dropping Docker? I mean, it's still AGPL licensed — why can't you use it from source?
In other words, what is the significant difference for your team that's worth changing the stack and navigating through the uncertainty of an alternative product?
Part of it is the trend of MinIO walking away from community customers. That to me is not a good sign, especially when it comes to project longevity. Do projects that do this kind of thing continue to flourish and thrive? I'm not sure that they do.
It's hard to feel good about remaining hitched to a horse that continues to send out red flags, especially when there are other good options out there for us.
Ease of setup and certified working solution. And yes, people should pay for certified working solution. But not when they use it the first time itself
However, I also understand that for any organization it is very painful to change their existing stack, thus I'm trying to understand what is gained between AGPL sources without Docker and switching technology to something different with Docker except 'ease of setup'.
A lot of small shops will find it easier to shift to a compatible S3 object storage which have their own docker compse scripts up and running than figure out how to build minio images successfully. Most products nowadays gives you ansible and docker scripts which can get you up and running inside an hour and then you can configure stuff later.
Building something on your own on the other hand is probably easily a half-time engineer just for build quality and dependency tracking.
Huge number of MinIO shops is one head node and 7 jbods in a single rack (giving you more thsn 10PB). And two such racks for redundancy and one offside rack for backup.
Not in this position, but obviously this might be the first of many measures taken. Next they could make the repository private. Code is only for customers, Red Hat style. It's not as popular as RHEL - a CentOS style effort is unlikely to materialize. Bug tracker and forums private. Lawyer letters about whether or not your usage is license compliant and a reminder that it would be expensive to prove it is, Oracle style.
Open source means what the license says it means. Expectations and conventions can be broken.
Most of people here put an equal sign between being open source and having Docker image.
For me open source is a license, and Docker is a distribution feature. From this prospective I can not understand how distributional channel and type of license are related, as code is still AGPL.
