5 ms·

That page says, "Requires Google Chrome or Firefox," and the download link takes you to the Chrome web store. I'm not sure the poster considers that full suppo

That page says, "Requires Google Chrome or Firefox," and the download link takes you to the Chrome web store. I'm not sure the poster considers that full support.

bsamuels 8y ago
How many Linux users don't have chrome or firefox installed? I think the article would be a bit more accurate to say there's not native client support for Linux.
- avhon1 8y ago
  There are applications besides web browsers that require passwords. For example, password-protected documents, or encrypted archives. A password managers that requires, or only supports, web browsers is incomplete.
  - eridius 8y ago
    A password manager that is only usable in a web browser may be annoying to use for non-web-related tasks, but presumably you can just switch to your web browser, open up the password manager, and then search for what you need within it. It's not like the password manager is restricted to only giving you access to the passwords for the current site.
- freehunter 8y ago
  None of my headless servers have Chrome or Firefox installed.
  - hnra 8y ago
    They offer a CLI for this case.
- loeg 8y ago
  Regardless, 1password X does not provide the full functionality of the native apps, so it's fair to say a Mac or Windows app is required for full functionality anyway.
mithr 8y ago
That's somewhat fair, although the 1Password X page (which is what AgileBits calls their in-browser version) describes it as being comparable to the native versions, which to me goes against OP's statement that > full functionality can’t be dependent on an app which is only available on Mac OS and/or Windows. The existence of 1Password X means that full functionality is not _dependent_ on a MacOS/Windows app. The argument that there should be a graphical (because there _is_ a multi-platform CLI), native app for Linux, which does not depend on any browser, is a perfectly valid one -- but it is also an argument that I don't believe they've made.
- jik 8y ago
  There is substantial functionality which is only available in the native app, not in 1Password X, and therefore completely unavailable on Linux. If the 1Password X claims that its functionality is comparable to the native version, then it is lying.
- loeg 8y ago
  1Password X is definitely not comparable to the native versions, and the statement was "full functionality can’t be dependent on an app which is only available on Mac OS and/or Windows." > The argument that there should be a graphical (because there _is_ a multi-platform CLI), native app for Linux, which does not depend on any browser, is a perfectly valid one -- but it is also an argument that I don't believe they've made. I think they're making that argument.
  - hnra 8y ago
    I have no experience with the mac app but 1Password X is certainly better than the native windows app.
sano1 8y ago
How is this different than just trusting the browser to handle saved passwords in an encrypted manner?

That page says, "Requires Google Chrome or Firefox," and the download link takes you to the Chrome web store. I'm not sure the poster considers that full support.

bsamuels 8y ago

How many Linux users don't have chrome or firefox installed? I think the article would be a bit more accurate to say there's not native client support for Linux.

avhon1 8y ago
There are applications besides web browsers that require passwords. For example, password-protected documents, or encrypted archives. A password managers that requires, or only supports, web browsers is incomplete.
- eridius 8y ago
  A password manager that is only usable in a web browser may be annoying to use for non-web-related tasks, but presumably you can just switch to your web browser, open up the password manager, and then search for what you need within it. It's not like the password manager is restricted to only giving you access to the passwords for the current site.
freehunter 8y ago
None of my headless servers have Chrome or Firefox installed.
- hnra 8y ago
  They offer a CLI for this case.
loeg 8y ago
Regardless, 1password X does not provide the full functionality of the native apps, so it's fair to say a Mac or Windows app is required for full functionality anyway.

mithr 8y ago

That's somewhat fair, although the 1Password X page (which is what AgileBits calls their in-browser version) describes it as being comparable to the native versions, which to me goes against OP's statement that > full functionality can’t be dependent on an app which is only available on Mac OS and/or Windows. The existence of 1Password X means that full functionality is not _dependent_ on a MacOS/Windows app. The argument that there should be a graphical (because there _is_ a multi-platform CLI), native app for Linux, which does not depend on any browser, is a perfectly valid one -- but it is also an argument that I don't believe they've made.

jik 8y ago
There is substantial functionality which is only available in the native app, not in 1Password X, and therefore completely unavailable on Linux. If the 1Password X claims that its functionality is comparable to the native version, then it is lying.
loeg 8y ago
1Password X is definitely not comparable to the native versions, and the statement was "full functionality can’t be dependent on an app which is only available on Mac OS and/or Windows." > The argument that there should be a graphical (because there _is_ a multi-platform CLI), native app for Linux, which does not depend on any browser, is a perfectly valid one -- but it is also an argument that I don't believe they've made. I think they're making that argument.
- hnra 8y ago
  I have no experience with the mac app but 1Password X is certainly better than the native windows app.

sano1 8y ago

How is this different than just trusting the browser to handle saved passwords in an encrypted manner?