You can pull the images by simply switching from using docker pull ubuntu:16.04 to docker pull public.ecr.aws/docker/library/ubuntu:16.04. We automatically push images to ECR Public when they are updated on Docker Hub so you will get all the latest releases wherever you pull from.
Please publish docker images to GHCR, it’s free with much better limits and is as simple to switch to as prepending the docker container url with ghcr.io/. Please do it maintainers!
What are the limits that DockerHub has, which are much worse than GHCR's limits for public images? (I'm genuinely curious.)
Also, it doesn't seem to be quite as simple to switch to as just prefixing ghcr.io. The default when you do that switch is to create private images (which cost and are not public), so you have to figure out everything related to making the images public, which possibly involves changing Dockerfiles to link the image to a public project, or other options. [1]
I can't find any stated rate limits for ghcr.io for public images. Presumably they secretly exist, but are meant to be as high as Github can provide for free...?
Yes I mean for users you can just prefix the url to pull the image. For publishers you just need a public repo, it can be empty. And push your image to that as a release or use github actions to build/publish it.
I don’t believe there are any stated limits, they probably have dynamic limits mostly for abuse, but regular/heavy usage will not encounter that.
https://www.docker.com/blog/news-from-aws-reinvent-docker-of...
To quote the example in the article:
You can pull the images by simply switching from using docker pull ubuntu:16.04 to docker pull public.ecr.aws/docker/library/ubuntu:16.04. We automatically push images to ECR Public when they are updated on Docker Hub so you will get all the latest releases wherever you pull from.