3 ms·
I've been using bitwarden_rs [0] because it's lighter, a bit faster, and a lot easier to set up (it's a single docker image with bitwarden in it, rather than ha
by bisby 6y ago
I've been using bitwarden_rs [0] because it's lighter, a bit faster, and a lot easier to set up (it's a single docker image with bitwarden in it, rather than having to reverse engineer their docker-compose "we choose where there data goes" forced deployment docker script.
Being a 3rd party implementation, Bitwarden Send doesn't work. So there are pro's and cons, but you can absolutely control your own data here without needing to use their official services.
[0] https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs
- infogulch 6y ago> Being a 3rd party implementation, Bitwarden Send doesn't work. Seems bitwarden_rs might get it too. https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/issues/246#issuecomment-796966385 https://github.com/dani-garcia/bitwarden_rs/issues/246#issue...
- bisby 6y agoFor sure. bitwarden implements the Bitwarden API so they tend to get around to all these features. It's just worth noting that they tend to trail upstream.