[HN Gopher] Bitwarden is now in Arch Linux community repository
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Bitwarden is now in Arch Linux community repository
        
       Author : libertylocked
       Score  : 68 points
       Date   : 2021-09-04 17:25 UTC (5 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (archlinux.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (archlinux.org)
        
       | schwede wrote:
       | Is this the client or the self hosted server? The page doesn't
       | make that clear.
        
         | nonameiguess wrote:
         | It's the desktop client. Arch's eminently readable build files
         | make this more obvious: https://github.com/archlinux/svntogit-
         | community/blob/package...
        
         | confilictswith wrote:
         | It's the desktop client. The unofficial vaultwarden server
         | package is also available in the community repository.
        
         | chx wrote:
         | The first dependency listed is electron11... that's desktop.
        
       | nyanpasu64 wrote:
       | How "open source" is Bitwarden? From what I can tell
       | (https://bitwarden.com/pricing/), the client is open-source, but
       | the service feature-gates a large number of features behind
       | premium accounts. Is this feature-gating accomplished by the
       | server or the client? Is Bitwarden truly community-owned free
       | open-source software, or solely a complement to their commercial
       | services and open-source to make for better marketing?
        
         | julianh95 wrote:
         | I believe that you can apply the license to your self hosted
         | server for the features. Here is their GitHub page:
         | https://github.com/bitwarden
         | 
         | Edit Found the on-prem license docs:
         | https://bitwarden.com/help/article/licensing-on-premise/
         | 
         | Edit You could also just fork it and enable the features if you
         | wanted to spend the time doing so.
        
         | [deleted]
        
         | onkoe wrote:
         | There is an open-source server called Vaultwarden, but it is
         | unofficial. The only truly open source part of Bitwarden is the
         | client. :(
        
           | AnIdiotOnTheNet wrote:
           | We switched to vaultwarden from a much older Java+Flash based
           | credential manager where I work, and I gotta say it's pretty
           | good. It's a little weird the way accounts work from our
           | perspective, but it makes sense given where it came from. And
           | it's a distributed as a docker container, so it's pretty easy
           | to deploy. Had to write a script to translate the old
           | manager's export format into something vaultwarden could
           | import, but it does have a lot of other managers' formats
           | built in.
        
           | oehtXRwMkIs wrote:
           | For those confused like me never having heard of Vaultwarden,
           | it is what bitwarden_rs was renamed to.
        
           | julianh95 wrote:
           | Is this not the server you are looking for? :-)
           | https://github.com/bitwarden/server
        
             | imposterr wrote:
             | It is. The parent and GP comments are wrong. Bitwarden is
             | fully open source and can be deployed in a local
             | environment.
        
               | pricechild wrote:
               | Open Source, but not Free Software. Check out the custom
               | licenced code within https://github.com/bitwarden/server/
               | tree/master/bitwarden_li...
        
               | imposterr wrote:
               | Sure, but the initial assertion was that only the client
               | was open source which is clearly false, so I was refuting
               | that. I did not speak the the FOSS nature of the
               | software.
        
               | toyg wrote:
               | Yup, technically it looks like you can only use that "for
               | the sole purposes of internal development and internal
               | testing, and only in a non-production environment".
               | 
               | Basically, they clearly don't police individual users
               | self-hosting, but they maintain the right to knock on the
               | door of companies.
               | 
               | Redistribution is also not allowed.
        
               | Flimm wrote:
               | That licence is neither open source, nor free/libre
               | software. Almost all licenses that are open source are
               | also free/libre, and vice versa. Exceptions are very
               | rare, because of how similar the definitions of open
               | source software and free/libre software are in practise.
               | 
               | (By the way, the only widely accepted definition of open
               | source software is the one published by the OSI, and the
               | only widely accepted definition of free/libre software is
               | the one published by the FSF, so those are the
               | definitions we use.)
        
               | geofft wrote:
               | It's not "Open Source" except by the literal definition
               | that the source is open to read (but by that definition,
               | the software is free to access, too). It's just freeware
               | / sample code.
               | 
               | The license for this code https://github.com/bitwarden/se
               | rver/blob/master/LICENSE_BITW... says,
               | 
               | > _2.4 Third Party Software. The Commercial Modules may
               | contain or be provided with third party open source
               | libraries, components, utilities and other open source
               | software (collectively, "Open Source Software")._
               | 
               | which implies that the Commercial Modules, themselves,
               | are not Open Source Software.
               | 
               | (Also it clearly doesn't follow the Open Source
               | Definition or any other standard definition of Open
               | Source.)
        
           | pricechild wrote:
           | I hadn't realised half the "official" server was under a non-
           | commercial _custom_ licence.
           | https://github.com/bitwarden/server
           | 
           | Last I looked, it wasn't fun to self-host anyway. Vaultwarden
           | ftw!
        
             | nyanpasu64 wrote:
             | I looked through the official server. 96 out of 1680 files
             | were located in the bitwarden_license directory, so I'd say
             | a lot less than "half" the official server. Nonetheless
             | their web offering is still non-free, and from hearing
             | about the difficulties self-hosting, it's probably a bad
             | idea.
             | 
             | However I don't know whether I'm better off using Bitwarden
             | free, paid, self-hosting and managing backups myself, or
             | just sticking with Firefox Sync (which has a _truly awful_
             | barely-working Android app).
        
       | istingray wrote:
       | I'm new to Linux. Is there a good overview of different password
       | managers out there? Switching off Apple Keychain so looking for
       | some basics.
       | 
       | Apple made it easy so I didn't think about the concept much so
       | not sure what I need. Is a password manager just for all my
       | browser logins?
        
         | brightly-salty wrote:
         | Bitwarden offers a browser extension you can use, I use it
         | daily. You create a master password which only you know and
         | then you can auto fill and generate new password just like
         | Apple Keychain.
        
           | istingray wrote:
           | Wow that sounds great, and it can be self hosted too?
           | 
           | I've been curious about 1Password but it seems closed source
           | and you can't self host so why bother. I'm leaving Apple for
           | that reason.
        
             | brightly-salty wrote:
             | I think you can self host with the browser extension, yeah.
             | Personally I just use the standard hosting because I don't
             | have a good way to self-host but it shouldn't be tied to
             | any particular host.
        
       | smiletolerantly wrote:
       | Very nice! Though I'll probably still be lazy and copy everything
       | out of the Firefox Addon...
        
         | [deleted]
        
       | encryptluks2 wrote:
       | I'm personally so happy with Password Store I cannot find a
       | reason for the hype behind this.
        
         | trevcanhuman wrote:
         | Yeah, me too! I can even use it on iOS for that matter. It's
         | honestly good enough.
         | 
         | I actually tried setting up a bit warden server on a (not so
         | old) computer but had just so much trouble with the docker
         | image, couldn't really find docs on how to set up without it,
         | just ridiculous in my opinion. A few months later, I tried
         | using pass full time and so far it's been great!
        
           | encryptluks2 wrote:
           | Good to hear. There is a great app for it on Android, and I
           | remember there being at least one for IOS.
           | 
           | On the desktop for browser integration there are at least a
           | couple well-maintained extensions. There is also gopass for
           | sharing passwords with a team or multiple people.
        
         | zwayhowder wrote:
         | I use Password Store a dozen times a day, but for sharing
         | passwords with my family Bitwarden is great. Cross platform,
         | easy enough for anyone to use regardless of the IT profficiency
         | and open source enough that I trust it more than Lastpass etc.
        
       | libertylocked wrote:
       | I had been maintaining (and patching) this package since 2018 on
       | AUR and it's amazing to see it being promoted to community.
       | Electron is definitely not the easiest to work with, but it's
       | been fun turning a fat electron app into a sub-10MB package.
        
         | philjackson wrote:
         | How did you reduce it?
        
           | encryptluks2 wrote:
           | I don't maintain this package, but with the ones I maintain
           | you use the system Electron.
        
         | naltun wrote:
         | Nicely done. Thanks for your work! The Arch community is where
         | it's at because of package maintainers. Btw I use arch.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-09-04 23:01 UTC)