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?

  • 4shtonButcher@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
    107·
    2 months ago

    Can’t we ever have software that just keeps working? Password managers are like the new RSS readers.

    1. search around for a good one
    2. find a nice one and start using it
    3. they add stuff you didn’t want and slowly make it worse
    4. they’re bought up/ abandoned/ otherwise become unviable

    Back to 1)

      • jasep@lemmy.worldEnglish
        69·
        2 months ago

        The downside to Keepass is it is not self hosted, as in it’s designed to run locally per device. Yes, you can put the database file on a network and have multiple clients from different operating systems access the database, but you will end up with collisions and database issues. Ask me how I know.

        Running cross platform Keepass (and it’s various forks) is absolutely doable, but it is not as seemless as BitWarden. I’m running self hosted VaultWarden and I’m hoping to run it for a long time as it’s much easier than Keepass.

    • catloaf@lemm.eeEnglish
      5·
      2 months ago

      Sure, you’re welcome to keep using the version you like, or to write or maintain one on your own. Or pay someone for their labor to do it for you.

      But if you use something made out of someone’s good will, don’t rely on it for anything critical.

      • gdog05@lemmy.worldEnglish
        6·
        2 months ago

        Money isn’t necessarily a factor. I’ve paid for many services that have made business or operating changes to the point of needing to separate and then there’s WinZip on the other side of things.

  • CommanderShepard@lemmy.worldEnglish
    42·
    2 months ago

    Bitwarden is a very convenient password manager for an average computer user. It’s very straightforward and easy to use.

    I can see some bias here of the people who say “o, just use KeePass and sync the database over some cloud provider”. What if there are conflicts? How do they deal with them? I can figure it our but most people I know, won’t.

    Even the password manager concept is a complicated concept to grasp for many people (that I know). And I can recommend them Bitwarden because it’s relatively easy, but KeePass with sync? Maybe, if I commit to actively help them with it.

    P.S. I’ve convinced several people to try out Linux, and they are willing to learn it, but even if they just need to use a browser, they struggle sometimes. I can’t imagine them syncing the KeePass database.

    • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.caEnglish
      14·
      2 months ago

      This is a common problem with Free software, and honestly I think it’s our biggest one: we build stuff for ourselves and stop there. If we want our stuff to be adopted (which, for things that rely on network effects, we do) then we need to pay more attention to usability.

      Here’s a suggestion for anyone starting a project they think they might share. Before you start writing any code, write the documentation. Then rewrite it from the perspective of the least tech-literate person you know who you’d still want to use the project. Only after you’ve worked out how easy it should be for this person to get started, then you can start writing the thing.

      • CommanderShepard@lemmy.worldEnglish
        5·
        2 months ago

        Ideally, the project should not require any documentation to read.

        Yep, I know, I think everyone should read to learn, but I’ve seen so many times peoples’ spark die once I tell them “I will send you the docs with clear instructions. If you have any questions, let me know :)”. The reply is often " Oh, but it should tell me where to click".

        Or maybe it’s because the docs are too difficult, I don’t know.

        • Daniel Quinn@lemmy.caEnglish
          5·
          2 months ago

          Generally, I agree. I think what I meant by the above is “how would you tell someone how to use the thing”. My favourite example is email vs email-with-PGP.

          How do you send an email?

          1. Open client
          2. Click “send new email”
          3. Type your email
          4. Click send

          How do you send a PGP-encrypted email

          Let’s first talk about this thing called a “keyserver”. Once you know what that is, you’ll have to go out and find some keys to add to it. We’re not going to talk about styling your message 'cause that’s not something you should be able to do… etc. etc.

        • EssentialNPC@lemmy.worldEnglish
          4·
          2 months ago

          Good documentation should, in part, tell people where to click. I have designed software documentation for high performing individuals at leading global companies, and I have designed software and hardware documentation for minimum wage fast food workers with limited English proficiency. In both extremes, I showed them exactly where to click on the screen at each step.

          You might not need that level of help, but many people do. Others do not strictly need it, but they prefer the simple instruction set. “Click here then here,” instructions ease the transition into a new system one needs to learn, or it removes the need entirely to learn a system one uses infrequently.

          The problem is that making good documentation is difficult and time consuming. It relies on a fundamentally different skill set than coding or even UI design.

          I agree that the ideal is for software to not need any documentation. In my experience, I have yet to see software that rises to that task and is used across a variety of experience levels and societal cross sections.

        • Allero@lemmy.todayEnglish
          2·
          2 months ago

          The docs are not only often difficult for an inexperienced user, they commonly omit points of failure.

          Various prerequisites, problematic settings, possibility of the user choosing the wrong menu etc. etc. should always be considered.

    • overload@sopuli.xyzEnglish
      7·
      2 months ago

      Have got two of my family members onto bitwarden and even that is a lot for the tech-illiterate. Couldn’t imagine Keepass+syncthing.

      Ultimately, bitwarden is better than using hunter12 for everything like how they were.

  • just_another_person@lemmy.worldEnglish
    34·
    2 months ago

    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.caEnglish
      38·
      2 months ago

      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.

      • Lucy :3@feddit.orgEnglish
        4·
        2 months ago

        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.orgEnglish
          16·
          2 months ago

          completely off track

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

        • Darorad@lemmy.worldEnglish
          6·
          2 months ago

          Eh, there’s a completely independent reimplementation of the server, so I’d be surprised if the same doesn’t happen for the apps if there’s a real issue that comes up

    • 486@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
      21·
      2 months ago

      BitWarden already has lots of clients.

      Does it? I’d be very much interested to know. I’ve been looking for other clients before, because I didn’t like the sluggishness of the Electron client, but couldn’t find any usable clients at all. There are some projects on Github, none of which seemed to be in a usable state. Perhaps I have been missing something.

      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.

      Nobody said that they can’t do that (although people rightfully questioned that their changes are indeed comatible with the GPLv3). I very much disagree that this isn’t a big deal, though.

        • 486@lemmy.worldOPEnglish
          7·
          2 months ago

          Thanks, I haven’t seen that one before, but I’d really prefer an open source application.

  • TrippyHippyDan@lemmy.worldEnglish
    21·
    2 months ago

    This plus the syncthing announcement about the Android client ending support is a bad day indeed. I was just thinking about self hosting instead of KeePass + SyncThing now it’s back to the drawing board once it stops working 😵‍💫

      • TrippyHippyDan@lemmy.worldEnglish
        1·
        2 months ago

        The whole point of self-hosting it is to not put the information on a public cloud. But, thankfully the F-Droid fork is still going on and I had misread it anyway.