5 ms·
Bitwarden is a great alternative. But it must be mentioned that you need to be willing to accept the responsibility and burden of the operational overhead requi
by jacurtis 5y ago
Bitwarden is a great alternative. But it must be mentioned that you need to be willing to accept the responsibility and burden of the operational overhead required to run it.
I realize that most people tout self-hosted as a "benefit", and it might be a benefit for the demographic reading HN. But for the average person, self-hosting is far from practical. Most people can't realistically boot up a DO droplet and install Docker and Bitwarden.
Heck, I am a SysAdmin as a career. I build highly available architecture all day long, but for my personal/family passwords it is honestly not something I personally want to handle. Maybe it is because I actually work in highly available architectures all day long that I am more fearful of throwing all my passwords onto a $5/mo DO droplet, that by its nature is not HA. Sure I have the expertise to lock it down, keep it secure, keep it backed up, keep it updated, etc.. But I am paying $60/yr for the VPC ($5/mo x 12 mos = $60/yr), which is the same cost as 1Password for a Family plan and is more expensive than the $36 they charge for a personal plan.
So even though I am qualified to reliably self-host everything, why would I want to? Why not just pay the same amount of money for someone else to accept that burden? Plus that company is scaled up to be running their customers on far more reliable architecture systems than I would alternatively be using on my single VPC/droplet.
This isn't to shit on Bitwarden. In fact i have a ton of experience with both Bitwarden and 1Password. These are easily the two best options on the market. Both have close to feature parity. You can't go wrong with either. But I would just cautiously warn people that want to self-host Bitwarden. This is a major responsibility to self-host an app that contains such critical information. Before you click install I would do a thought experiment of what would happen if you lost your Bitwarden installation, and therefore ALL of your unique passwords across the entire internet. Now ask yourself, how confident are you that you can avoid that situation. Then remember that affordable alternatives exist that take that responsibility away from you.
This isn't saying that you shouldn't do it. Just that it isn't practical for most people. And I honestly don't see the draw for self-hosting a personal or family account. I would self-host a business account. But why bother with personal or family? Just get a hosted account so you don't have to play "IT Person" at home when your partner gets locked out of Netflix and can't access the password.
- brewdad 5y agoYou're not required to self-host Bitwarden, it's simply touted as an option around here for those too paranoid to let a third party host their passwords. If you are already in the 'let someone else deal with it' camp, then Bitwarden is dead simple. It works everywhere and does a great job of keeping your vault in sync on any device. All for way less than 1Password.
- linsomniac 5y agoGoing to confirm this: BitWarden is dead simple to set up without any hosting requirement. There's an option to host it, which I haven't tried, because the base setup is so dead simple.
- bwoodruff 5y agoThis whole comment was a great read, and parallels how I personally feel about self-hosting. I have a homelab with my own servers where I love to play with this kind of stuff. Do I want the responsibility of setting up and maintaining the 1Password service all by myself as a production environment? Absolutely not. I have more infrastructure in my basement than some small companies have in their entire organization. :D But in terms of relying on that infrastructure, run by me alone, for something as mission critical as 1Password? I'll pass. - Ben, 1Password