201–210 of 306 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For this I self-host vaultwarden ( https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden ), an implementation of the bitwarden server, on my raspberry pi at home (and back up the DB frequently). It works well enough for me, and doesn't have my stuff stored in a single company's cloud.
So what if the disk crashes? Do you keep backups? In the cloud?
FYI - Bitwarden took $100M in VC money last year. At some point, the pressure to aggressively monetize will unfortunately happen. https://techcrunch.com/2022/09/06/open-source-password-manag...
We would need a Vaultwarden-like project for the clients as well to have an OS fork. https://github.com/bitwarden/clients
Here, I also want to mention vaultwarden which is an open-source Rust implementation of the server: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why does everyone assume that if something is open source it must also be free and licensed under permissive license allowing you whatever? Briefly looking at their website I got the impression that it was meant for transparency reasons rather than in the spirit of free and open-source.
Yesterday I was listening to The Changelog podcast with Steve O'Grady called "Open Source is at a Crossroads". In it he says something along the lines of: We have companies come to us saying they want to release their source under an encumbered license and we tell them that they can definitely do that but they can't call it open source, because open source means something fairly specific to developers. We work with t…
So, the argument is simply that Open Source is a branding that attracts developers as a target group.
I wonder when will we start seeing commercial, source available projects posted to GitHub with a single file like stringutils.[ts|go|java|etc] MIT-licensed for a single purpose of calling the entire project "Open Source"
[1]: https://redmonk.com/sogrady/2023/08/03/why-opensource-matter...
The title is misleading. This is not fully "free and open-source". I'm actually puzzled by the licensing structure. Bitwarden server is dual-licensed [1] - part of it is licensed with AGPL (Open Source) - some features are licensed with a source available Bitwarden license Now, even the Open Source core requires you to register if you want to self host. This is to provide you with complementary services like security…
> ... api includes... Commercial Core which is under the Bitwarden License, however this can be disabled by using /p:DefineConstants="OSS" as an argument to dotnet while building the module.
Huh, more negative than I expected. For some reason I had Bitwarden as an HN darling in my head. Not sure where I got that from. I pay for premium for $10 a year. Not sure what I actually take advantage of with that honestly but I just really like the product. That said, it's not based on a lot of competition searching. Am I missing out on some big benefits in other managers?
I just have a rule that if I can get 80% of the same features with an open source solution I'll use it, even if it's not "the best."
I wanted to like Bitwarden, due to its “open source” nature. But 1Password is really miles ahead, and it's a little ironic, as 1Password 8 went through a major refactoring to a Node-enabled UI, which many people disliked, and it's still miles and miles ahead. I tried teaching my father to use Bitwarden for the sole reason that it seemed to be translated into my native tongue. In his use, Bitwarden turned out to be co…