4 ms·

It's been a few years since I looked at the official server setup (I immediately switched to bitwarden_rs, this project), so maybe this isn't as true today: Mo

It's been a few years since I looked at the official server setup (I immediately switched to bitwarden_rs, this project), so maybe this isn't as true today: Mostly it's that the official setup is the same thing that runs their free/paid hosted service. By design, it is quite split apart into separate areas, presumably so they can scale independently of each other: https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/SETUP.md https://github.com/bitwarden/server/blob/master/SETUP.md But most people are going to want to host self-hosted instances for themselves, their families, or maybe a small company. The official server might be the best route if you're deploying to thousand of users, but that won't be most people. Another benefit is that this flips all of the "paid" feature flags to true. If you self-host Bitwarden's official setup you still have to pay a subscription to use paid features.

sramam 5y ago
> Another benefit is that this flips all of the "paid" feature flags to true. If you self-host Bitwarden's official setup you still have to pay a subscription to use paid features. As a developer and cheapskate user myself, I understand the appeal of this. As a product builder, I struggle with what this means to build a business upon an open core model.
- Caligatio 5y ago
  I would have more of a problem with this if it was a simple fork with a few variables modified to enable features rather than a complete rewrite with a compatible API. None of the paid features are technological breakthroughs (e.g. one just checks HIBP to see if passwords have been leaked) so, imo, it's really the re-implementor that did all the work. I do feel a little bad using the client applications for free given their business model revolves charging for the backend only.
  - NoahKAndrews 5y ago
    Why not pay for an inexpensive subscription to the hosted version, and just not use it?
- josephcsible 5y ago
  Open core is bad, so things that make it more difficult to be successful with it are good.
  - sramam 5y ago
    Interesting perspective. Could you explain why and for whom it's bad? I can't completely tell from your comment - but do you tend open-source or closed-source as an alternative?
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      It's bad because profits off of open source's good name without actually being open source.

sramam 5y ago

> Another benefit is that this flips all of the "paid" feature flags to true. If you self-host Bitwarden's official setup you still have to pay a subscription to use paid features. As a developer and cheapskate user myself, I understand the appeal of this. As a product builder, I struggle with what this means to build a business upon an open core model.

Caligatio 5y ago
I would have more of a problem with this if it was a simple fork with a few variables modified to enable features rather than a complete rewrite with a compatible API. None of the paid features are technological breakthroughs (e.g. one just checks HIBP to see if passwords have been leaked) so, imo, it's really the re-implementor that did all the work. I do feel a little bad using the client applications for free given their business model revolves charging for the backend only.
- NoahKAndrews 5y ago
  Why not pay for an inexpensive subscription to the hosted version, and just not use it?
josephcsible 5y ago
Open core is bad, so things that make it more difficult to be successful with it are good.
- sramam 5y ago
  Interesting perspective. Could you explain why and for whom it's bad? I can't completely tell from your comment - but do you tend open-source or closed-source as an alternative?
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    It's bad because profits off of open source's good name without actually being open source.