FilterHN

16 points

4 hours ago

| 4 comments

| bitwarden.com

| HN

1 hour ago

[-]

Still needs an account on the bitwarden website for a self-hosting key. Why?

I'll stay with vaultwarden, the actually local installation.

1 hour ago

[-]

Is it better to trust another project that may itself be compromised in some way?

1 hour ago

[-]

I'm a paying customer of bitwarden, and I'm very happy with the service.

However, I also self-host vaultwarden for non-personal use. And when I do that, I refuse to create an online account, out of principle.

2 hours ago

[-]

Nice!

I wonder how this stacks up to Vaultwarden, which is really good.

1 hour ago

[-]

Neat. Glad to see an official solution for self hosting.

2 hours ago

[-]

It's very unclear to me what the differences are between the classic installation and the lite version in terms of features.

Can anyone clarify?

1 hour ago

[-]

Probably the most important detail is:

> Utilize different database solutions such as MSSQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and MySQL/MariaDB. Only lite deployments can currently leverage these databases, standard deployments require MSSQL.

21 minutes ago

[-]

Those are the pros, but what are the cons? Surely there are limitations for it to be called "lite", else they'd have just added support for all that to the regular version.