Selfhosted

60177 readers

581 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

Be civil.
No spam.
Posts are to be related to self-hosting.
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.
Submission headline should match the article title.
No trolling.
Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details.

Resources:

selfh.st Newsletter and index of selfhosted software and apps
awesome-selfhosted software
awesome-sysadmin resources
Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago

MODERATORS

curbstickle@anarchist.nexus

curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world

Concerns Raised Over Bitwarden Moving Further Away From Open-Source (www.phoronix.com)

submitted 2 years ago by 486@lemmy.world to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world

12 comments fedilink hide all child comments

Bitwarden introduced a non-free dependency to their clients. The Bitwarden CTO tried to frame this as a bug but his explanation does not really make it any less concerning.

Perhaps it is time for alternative Bitwarden-compatible clients. An open source client that's not based on Electron would be nice. Or move to something else entirely? Are there any other client-server open source password managers?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

BitWarden already has lots of clients. There's also VaultWarden for the server if you want.

This is being blown a bit out of proportion though. All they are saying is the official SDK may have some non-free components going forward. So what? It's a private company, they can do what they want. Or the community can just fork it and move forward with a free one if they want, but it's just not going to be in the official BitWarden clients. Hardly news or a big deal.

[–] thayerw@lemmy.ca 1 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I can only speak for myself, but I would never trust opaque, proprietary software to manage my credentials, especially in a networked environment. For me, that's a total showstopper.

I've never had need to use Bitwarden or Vaultwarden as I've always been happy with KeePass, but this news would definitely have me choosing an alternative.

[–] 30p87@feddit.org 0 points 2 years ago (1 children)

I always found it weird for people to recommend BitWarden ... it just FELT like a company that'll go completely off track sooner or later. And it did. Oh wonder. KeePass ftw!

[–] Lemmchen@feddit.org 1 points 2 years ago

completely off track

Let's see how things evolve before declaring things like that.