5 ms·

BitWarden's architecture requires a server when there is no technical reason to require one. That enforces a dark pattern whereby users must either (a) acquiesc

BitWarden's architecture requires a server when there is no technical reason to require one. That enforces a dark pattern whereby users must either (a) acquiesce to BitWarden owning their password database or (b) go through the pain of running their own dedicated server. You say you are "Not sure why [I] would do that instead of..." This is exactly my point. You fundamentally disagree with my requirements. I'm genuinely, sincerely glad that BitWarden works well for you. It doesn't work well for me because it is not local-first and requires a server. As a result, all these BitWarden posts are off-topic for the OP. If you have a recommendation that meets the criteria in the OP, I'd be very grateful to hear it. However, please don't come here just to get all fighty and argue that my requirements are wrong.

sliken 5y ago
Er, I don't understand. You install bitwarden on your phone, you use it, never use a server. Not even required to have internet. The app isn't some crippled client, it can create a vault, encrypt the vault, edit the vault, etc. No cloud or server is required, only if it's useful for you to sync with other devices. Seems weird to call it a dark pattern because they optionally provide a way to sync through a server to keep N clients in sync that's easier to use than trying to rsync between N clients. Having used rsync to keep a work computer, home computer, laptop, and 2 phones synced with a password DB (Keepass) for years, I greatly prefer the sync through server solution, but that's not forced on you.
- torstenvl 5y ago