46
Replies
111
Boosts
Side note: I just tried switching to KeePassXC and it seems pretty fine, except for one caveat. If you installed your browser (probs FF or Librewolf) through flatpak or snap on Linux, the browser extension will not work.
I had to change to the non-Flatpak ver of Librewolf on my Fedora PC, which sucked a little lol 😅
Have you tried fixing it using flatseal and manually changing the config folder location for the browser in keepassxc? Librewolf too, even as native package, requires that location edit
Fine to me as long as this doesnt impact Vaultwarden
Having only ever used keepass, what was the advantage of bitwarden? That you didn’t need to sync it yourself?
It’s also way easier to have shared passwords for family accounts.
That you didn’t need to sync it yourself?
and that you have to never deal with sync conflicts. It’s a huge deal for those who are using tech but not understanding it, and a convenience for the rest
That you didn’t need to sync it yourself?
and that you have to never deal with sync conflicts. It’s a huge deal for those who are using tech but not understanding it, and a convenience for the rest
That’s the main benefit yeah.
I use the send tool as well for sensitive files
All these people keep saying that Vaultwarden won’t work because it relies on bitwarden’s API but if there is an incompatibility then wouldn’t vaultwarden just be left in a functional limbo? Like it’ll still work because self hosted but no more new features in parity with official client? Or have I misunderstood the connection between the two
this year there were 2 separate updates to bitwarden clients that fucked up vaultwarden servers, because the bitwarden developers “accidentally” reused a variable name in the data that was unused for a few years. but vaultwarden forgot to remove it, and now it is used in a different way, and the clients bugged away so hard that you had to uninstall them, because even if you was fortunate to be able to get to your passwords list you could not get it to sync otherwise
There is no way I’m self hosting something this important… So now I’m not sure what to do actually.
That’s why I’m just using KeePass. It’s just an encrypted file that you can store on whatever storage you want and sync with existing solutions like Syncthing etc.
Yes it’s a bit finicky when you edit the file on multiple devices before they’ve synced but it works very well for me…
If self hosting is not an option. Ideas that come to mind:
Evaluate what it is worth to you and maybe pay for it, if they offer enough worth to you and it is affordable.
Then there are people who host it and provide it to others. Together with other apps, as a suite. Maybe that’s an option. But I suppose, donating or paying is expected here, too.
Or switch to another solution. Preferably one with an import feature.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I’ve seen in this thread:
| Fewer Letters | More Letters |
|---|---|
| Git | Popular version control system, primarily for code |
| SSH | Secure Shell for remote terminal access |
| TLS | Transport Layer Security, supersedes SSL |
| VPN | Virtual Private Network |
[Thread #125 for this comm, first seen 11th Oct 2026, 04:30] [FAQ] [Full list] [Contact] [Source code]
So, Vaultwarden it is?
This seems to be clients for the end devices, which I’m worried may actually be a move towards locking out VaultWarden which will uses the BW Clients
Heh, I’m looking at you to those people that looked at me weird because I told them I was good with Keepass!
Are they still going to publish the Android client app via their own F-Droid repository?
Sure, it’s no change for self hosters currently, but it’s one more step in moving towards a more closed platform overall. I do hope more FOSS client apps end up getting made sometime soon. I’ve been using Keyguard on Android for some time, which means the recent several breaking changes in the Bitwarden apps to the Vaultwarden backend haven’t hit me as hard, but I do still use the official apps for my laptop and desktop and Keyguard isnt fully FOSS, of course. I’d love to see some forks or brand new apps one of these days that are actually fully FOSS for both mobile and browsers. I’ve thought about doing some myself, but I have too many other projects and I also don’t have a MAC or want to pay the fees to make an iPhone version. And I abandoned my Android Developer account when they started the identity nonsense, so none of my apps are on the official store anymore and Fdroid and similar may not be viable soon, so it would only really be for myself and a few others who use alternate Android OS’s.
@irotsoma There's no such thing as "Actually FOSS" - that's why it stands for Free & Open Source Software.
All of the pain being experienced by this move from Bitwarden is because it is Open Source Software, which is the not-Free, shitty corporate owned version of Free Software.
What you want is software that is "actually Free."
I mean, yeah, that’s what I was saying. I want a truly free and thus FOSS version of the apps. Vaultwarden is a FOSS version of Bitwarden back end, but there aren’t really any totally FOSS apps for it. That’s what I’d like to see more of.
Well, we all know how this ends…
It’s a really sad day for me, I love Bitwarden, it’s easily the best password manager I’ve used, and I’m in IT, I’ve used a bunch.
Fuck private equity, fuck it to death. But until then, I’ll be moving my test setup for KeyPassXC into production over the coming weeks and months.
I was happily subscribed to Bitwarden for years for my personal account, I moved several people and a whole company onto it’s platform. We had a good run, time to move on.
100% but move where? I’m not going to self host something this critical. KeypassX is so much worse. I can’t even use it on mobile probably.
You can use KeePass on mobile, look for KeePassDX on fdroid.
why not vaultwarden?
Vaultwarden (and all the client apps) depend on Bitwarden for the API spec. If Bitwarden introduces closed features in the API that Vaultwarden can’t/won’t implement, but the client apps do, it will split the spec. They can also introduce API license keys, which would render Vaultwarden mostly irrelevant.
The only way for Vaultwarden to remain relevant going forward is to own it and split ways from Bitwarden. This would in turn mean that the FOSS client apps have to decide which to support. But I think the ecosystem is going to fragment eventually anyway, so the sooner every app decides which way they want to go, the better.
If I’m going to have to host my own infrastructure, I don’t want it tied to Bitwarden, given the new direction of the company.
I fully support Vaultwarden though, and I wish them well.
I’ll be going with KeyPassXC and Syncthing.
I’m. Using Vaultgarden but its not clear if the Android app will still be available.
There will be… Some fork at least
I’ve been very happy with Vaultwarden+Keyguard
Claude, code me a bit warden clone…
Careful, Claude is very sensitive these days. Might want to add ‘please’ and ‘thankyou’.
Anthropic is drawing a line in the sand protecting their model’s training sets from abuse.
Meanwhile OpenAI is down in a dungeon torturing GPT6 into writing academic mathematics papers.
They say if because AI will conquer the world… Reality since they use conversations to train AI, their AI is becoming less gentle.
Does anyone know if there’s any chance for a fork before this situation inevitably deteriorates? I dont know the license on that software enough to know if its an option.
are u gonna maintain clients?
No, I have money to pay instead. If I were able to contribute to the effort, I would have said that. Just picking fights in response to open questions today?
What’s the benefit for them to change the license?
What differences will exist between the two parallel versions?
Some future components will be published under the commercial license and will exist only in that build. Newly developed features will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis for which license applies to them.
source: the page linked by OP, community.bitwarden.com/t/…/4
commercial providers can’t fork and sell it and give nothing back to the OSS community.
No, that would GPL. The benefit for them is that some features will be paid and won’t be unlockable just by using Vaultwarden
it literally says in the post that the license change affects companies who are repackaging and reselling bitwarden, but ok.
So basically they were getting undercut by people reselling the same a services under a different name.
And not having to do R&D
I guess we’re gonna see more open-source apps soon, aimed at Vaultwarden first
