Comment on Lightweight and flexible: Bitwarden lite self-host deployment is now generally available | Bitwarden

• abeltramo@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  If you don’t do off-site backups there’s no recovery from your house burning down. Which self hosted alternative will survive without backups from all your devices burning? You are completely missing the point.

  source

  • ammonium@lemmy.world ⁨15⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

    If you don’t do off-site backups there’s no recovery from your house burning down.

    Exactly my point and exactly the opposite of what you said earlier.

    source

    • abeltramo@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

      Let explain the point for you: the way Bitwarden works is that you have your full vault saved offline on every device where you’ve logged in. It’s not just showing you what’s currently on the server, it all works even if the server goes offline.

      Now, obviously you still need backups, but that’s valid for any kind of storage on the planet. Unless you have a magical solution that doesn’t require them I don’t see how Bitwarden is “worse” than any other alternative. Would you like to explain what’s your current strategy?

      source

      • ammonium@lemmy.world ⁨12⁩ ⁨hours⁩ ago

        It’s not worse than any other self hosted system, the fact your vault is on every device might be useful if you don’t have a connection, but IMO it doesn’t really add any value in terms of backup.

        I’m glad the option exists, but I don’t self host and pay Bitwarden €12 per year. For that price I can’t set up a more reliable system than they can even if I would consider my time free

        source

        • -> View More Comments