▲ 1000 ▼ Bitwarden's new CEO has a Private Equity background, removed 'Inclusion' and 'Always Free' from their website -- because of course he did (www.fastcompany.com) submitted 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago) by german@pawb.social to c/selfhosted@lemmy.world 229 comments fedilink hide all child comments In the latest episode of "they will always sell you out" - they sold you out! Who would've thought. Hoping for a good alternative client to appear, the writing is on the wall. Vaultwarden can't exist without "leeching" off of Bitwarden.
[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 5 points 3 months ago (13 children) What is "collaboration" in this context? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 13 child comments replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (10 children) Sharing passwords between groups of people so everyone always has the up to date version. Not breaking the world if two people try to modify the same entry as some file syncing solutions do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev -3 points 3 months ago (9 children) Hmm, interesting, though isn't that a fault of the organization not having an account-linking system so that each person could have their own credentials but can still access the unified content? This workaround seems... flimsy, unless I'm not picturing a legit scenario in which no other method is as good, or something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (2 children) It's the fault of my family organization or every company we use that my parent's bank, Google, phone, laptop, etc don't allow more than one set of credentials to access the same thing? It's not just that we need to be able to share credentials the once a blue moon I need to help them by logging into their account? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) Wait, I don't understand. Why do you need to do so much account-sharing? I never had half of that... and if connecting is just once in a blue moon, then it shouldn't need something like group creds anyway, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago I have credentials shared with my parents passwords managers (and others) so when they ask for help with a service I can do it remotely for the services they want help with, but not their whole password manager. I share company passwords in an organization so I can manage user accounts for things a user needs into but doesn't want to manage (I can change the Snowflake password but they can still login). I share common passwords with everyone in the house (gate codes, door codes, etc). Then when they need to change, no one is bothered or needs to take action. Also, then anyone can change it and everyone who should have the new one, does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Sometimes it just makes sense to have a single team login. Licensing for instance where each user costs money and not all users need a dedicated account to look at something of which only 1% is of importance to them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Fair. I've clearly not worked at a place like this before! permalink fedilink source parent [–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 3 months ago (3 children) You know why most cloud based services charge money? For stuff like this, because it’s not free to implement and maintain. Easy and fault-proof password sharing and syncing needs software and hardware to do. You either set it up and maintain it yourself, or pay for a product that does it - like Bitwarden. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children) But your argument falls apart against something like Syncthing's discovery networks combined with send-/receive-only folder types, which use no cloud yet allow the automatic, passive propagation of file updates to different users' devices... right? No cloud, no self-hosting, yet automatic syncing across multiple devices... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I’d say that goes under needs software and hardware and set it up and maintain it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago It doesn't need any hardware that I can think of, but yeah, that's true: one would need to do a lot of DIY. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Parallel creating, reading, updating, deleting password entries by multiple users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Whoa, thanks. I had no idea this was a thing... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago (10 children) Sharing passwords between groups of people so everyone always has the up to date version. Not breaking the world if two people try to modify the same entry as some file syncing solutions do. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev -3 points 3 months ago (9 children) Hmm, interesting, though isn't that a fault of the organization not having an account-linking system so that each person could have their own credentials but can still access the unified content? This workaround seems... flimsy, unless I'm not picturing a legit scenario in which no other method is as good, or something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (2 children) It's the fault of my family organization or every company we use that my parent's bank, Google, phone, laptop, etc don't allow more than one set of credentials to access the same thing? It's not just that we need to be able to share credentials the once a blue moon I need to help them by logging into their account? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) Wait, I don't understand. Why do you need to do so much account-sharing? I never had half of that... and if connecting is just once in a blue moon, then it shouldn't need something like group creds anyway, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago I have credentials shared with my parents passwords managers (and others) so when they ask for help with a service I can do it remotely for the services they want help with, but not their whole password manager. I share company passwords in an organization so I can manage user accounts for things a user needs into but doesn't want to manage (I can change the Snowflake password but they can still login). I share common passwords with everyone in the house (gate codes, door codes, etc). Then when they need to change, no one is bothered or needs to take action. Also, then anyone can change it and everyone who should have the new one, does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Sometimes it just makes sense to have a single team login. Licensing for instance where each user costs money and not all users need a dedicated account to look at something of which only 1% is of importance to them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Fair. I've clearly not worked at a place like this before! permalink fedilink source parent [–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 3 months ago (3 children) You know why most cloud based services charge money? For stuff like this, because it’s not free to implement and maintain. Easy and fault-proof password sharing and syncing needs software and hardware to do. You either set it up and maintain it yourself, or pay for a product that does it - like Bitwarden. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children) But your argument falls apart against something like Syncthing's discovery networks combined with send-/receive-only folder types, which use no cloud yet allow the automatic, passive propagation of file updates to different users' devices... right? No cloud, no self-hosting, yet automatic syncing across multiple devices... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I’d say that goes under needs software and hardware and set it up and maintain it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago It doesn't need any hardware that I can think of, but yeah, that's true: one would need to do a lot of DIY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev -3 points 3 months ago (9 children) Hmm, interesting, though isn't that a fault of the organization not having an account-linking system so that each person could have their own credentials but can still access the unified content? This workaround seems... flimsy, unless I'm not picturing a legit scenario in which no other method is as good, or something. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 9 child comments replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (2 children) It's the fault of my family organization or every company we use that my parent's bank, Google, phone, laptop, etc don't allow more than one set of credentials to access the same thing? It's not just that we need to be able to share credentials the once a blue moon I need to help them by logging into their account? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) Wait, I don't understand. Why do you need to do so much account-sharing? I never had half of that... and if connecting is just once in a blue moon, then it shouldn't need something like group creds anyway, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago I have credentials shared with my parents passwords managers (and others) so when they ask for help with a service I can do it remotely for the services they want help with, but not their whole password manager. I share company passwords in an organization so I can manage user accounts for things a user needs into but doesn't want to manage (I can change the Snowflake password but they can still login). I share common passwords with everyone in the house (gate codes, door codes, etc). Then when they need to change, no one is bothered or needs to take action. Also, then anyone can change it and everyone who should have the new one, does. permalink fedilink source parent [–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Sometimes it just makes sense to have a single team login. Licensing for instance where each user costs money and not all users need a dedicated account to look at something of which only 1% is of importance to them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Fair. I've clearly not worked at a place like this before! permalink fedilink source parent [–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 3 months ago (3 children) You know why most cloud based services charge money? For stuff like this, because it’s not free to implement and maintain. Easy and fault-proof password sharing and syncing needs software and hardware to do. You either set it up and maintain it yourself, or pay for a product that does it - like Bitwarden. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children) But your argument falls apart against something like Syncthing's discovery networks combined with send-/receive-only folder types, which use no cloud yet allow the automatic, passive propagation of file updates to different users' devices... right? No cloud, no self-hosting, yet automatic syncing across multiple devices... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I’d say that goes under needs software and hardware and set it up and maintain it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago It doesn't need any hardware that I can think of, but yeah, that's true: one would need to do a lot of DIY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 months ago (2 children) It's the fault of my family organization or every company we use that my parent's bank, Google, phone, laptop, etc don't allow more than one set of credentials to access the same thing? It's not just that we need to be able to share credentials the once a blue moon I need to help them by logging into their account? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) Wait, I don't understand. Why do you need to do so much account-sharing? I never had half of that... and if connecting is just once in a blue moon, then it shouldn't need something like group creds anyway, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago I have credentials shared with my parents passwords managers (and others) so when they ask for help with a service I can do it remotely for the services they want help with, but not their whole password manager. I share company passwords in an organization so I can manage user accounts for things a user needs into but doesn't want to manage (I can change the Snowflake password but they can still login). I share common passwords with everyone in the house (gate codes, door codes, etc). Then when they need to change, no one is bothered or needs to take action. Also, then anyone can change it and everyone who should have the new one, does. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago* (1 child) Wait, I don't understand. Why do you need to do so much account-sharing? I never had half of that... and if connecting is just once in a blue moon, then it shouldn't need something like group creds anyway, right? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago I have credentials shared with my parents passwords managers (and others) so when they ask for help with a service I can do it remotely for the services they want help with, but not their whole password manager. I share company passwords in an organization so I can manage user accounts for things a user needs into but doesn't want to manage (I can change the Snowflake password but they can still login). I share common passwords with everyone in the house (gate codes, door codes, etc). Then when they need to change, no one is bothered or needs to take action. Also, then anyone can change it and everyone who should have the new one, does. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] eightys3v3n@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 months ago I have credentials shared with my parents passwords managers (and others) so when they ask for help with a service I can do it remotely for the services they want help with, but not their whole password manager. I share company passwords in an organization so I can manage user accounts for things a user needs into but doesn't want to manage (I can change the Snowflake password but they can still login). I share common passwords with everyone in the house (gate codes, door codes, etc). Then when they need to change, no one is bothered or needs to take action. Also, then anyone can change it and everyone who should have the new one, does. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Appoxo@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) Sometimes it just makes sense to have a single team login. Licensing for instance where each user costs money and not all users need a dedicated account to look at something of which only 1% is of importance to them. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Fair. I've clearly not worked at a place like this before! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Fair. I've clearly not worked at a place like this before! permalink fedilink source parent
[–] FreedomAdvocate@lemmy.net.au 2 points 3 months ago (3 children) You know why most cloud based services charge money? For stuff like this, because it’s not free to implement and maintain. Easy and fault-proof password sharing and syncing needs software and hardware to do. You either set it up and maintain it yourself, or pay for a product that does it - like Bitwarden. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children) But your argument falls apart against something like Syncthing's discovery networks combined with send-/receive-only folder types, which use no cloud yet allow the automatic, passive propagation of file updates to different users' devices... right? No cloud, no self-hosting, yet automatic syncing across multiple devices... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I’d say that goes under needs software and hardware and set it up and maintain it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago It doesn't need any hardware that I can think of, but yeah, that's true: one would need to do a lot of DIY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 0 points 3 months ago* (2 children) But your argument falls apart against something like Syncthing's discovery networks combined with send-/receive-only folder types, which use no cloud yet allow the automatic, passive propagation of file updates to different users' devices... right? No cloud, no self-hosting, yet automatic syncing across multiple devices... permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I’d say that goes under needs software and hardware and set it up and maintain it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago It doesn't need any hardware that I can think of, but yeah, that's true: one would need to do a lot of DIY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] captcha_incorrect@lemmy.world 3 points 3 months ago (1 child) I’d say that goes under needs software and hardware and set it up and maintain it yourself permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago It doesn't need any hardware that I can think of, but yeah, that's true: one would need to do a lot of DIY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago It doesn't need any hardware that I can think of, but yeah, that's true: one would need to do a lot of DIY. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Viceversa@lemmy.world 6 points 3 months ago (1 child) Parallel creating, reading, updating, deleting password entries by multiple users. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Whoa, thanks. I had no idea this was a thing... permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Flagstaff@programming.dev 1 point 3 months ago Whoa, thanks. I had no idea this was a thing... permalink fedilink source parent