this post was submitted on 15 May 2026
997 points (99.1% liked)

Selfhosted

61003 readers
321 users here now

A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.

Rules:

Detailed Rules Post

  1. Be civil.

  2. No spam.

  3. Posts are to be related to self-hosting.

  4. Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or readme if you're providing a link.

  5. Submission headline should match the article title.

  6. No trolling.

  7. Promotion posts require active participation, with an account that is at least 30 days old. F/LOSS without a paywall has exceptions, with requirements. See the rules link for details. Tags [CBH] or [AIP] are required, see the links in Rule 8 for details.

  8. AI-related discussions and AI-involved promotional posts have additional requirements for tagging, as noted in Rule 7 and the AI & Promotional Post Expanded Rules post, and find example disclosures here.

Resources:

Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.

Questions? DM the mods!

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
ruud@lemmy.world
Loki@lemmy.world
CannaVet@lemmy.world
devve@lemmy.world
ayyy@sh.itjust.works
curbstickle@anarchist.nexus
curbstickle_lw@lemmy.world
997
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 2 months ago* (last edited 2 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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 9 points 2 months ago (1 children)

Vaultwarden can't exist without "leeching" off of Bitwarden.

Why not? No reason mobile apps and browser extensions can't be forked.

[–] german@pawb.social 0 points 2 months ago (2 children)
[–] zipjo@lemmy.world 3 points 2 months ago* (last edited 2 months ago)

The linked vulnerability has been fixed a day prior of being reported by the dev themself and it's not an issue since then, it even sais so in the cve description.

[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 2 points 2 months ago (2 children)

Well, yes, Vaultwarden would need more support, but that happens pretty frequently when a major provider enshitifies. Look at Godot, Lemmy, etc.

As for the CVE linked, BitWarden itself has many more: https://app.opencve.io/cve/?vendor=bitwarden

CVEs aren't an indication of poor quality. Speed to resolution is. It's not often devs themselves are finding CVEs, it's the community.

At the core, regardless of what a C suiter does to the marketing, the state of the FOSS repos is what matters. Since they already walked back the "always free" comment this whole debate may be moot, so time will tell. Hopefully the rest of the company and the public sway them to continue to support it properly themselves.

[–] german@pawb.social 3 points 2 months ago

I suppose so. Maybe the corporate propaganda got to me about the security of smaller projects.

[–] WhyJiffie@sh.itjust.works 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

wait, did Godot enshittify?

[–] Fmstrat@lemmy.world 1 points 2 months ago

No, hah, the opposite. Others enshitified, Godot grew because of it.