Hacker News Reader

Comment by jamessb | Hacker News Reader

If you don't want to trust Bitwarden with your data, you can self-host a server yourself (either running the official server [1] or the compatible Vaultwarden [2]).

[1]: https://github.com/bitwarden/server

[2]: https://github.com/dani-garcia/vaultwarden

View on HN

Exactly. If you can self-host a password manager then surely you can self-host a Git repository as well and use that instead and avoid this: [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32735734

and get into merge hell when you forget to push and have passwords added on two different binary blobs? no thanks. I prefer using something that was meant to be a password server

No. You misread my point. I never said you should replace Bitwarden and use a Git repository as a password manager. My point is about self-hosting in general, hence why I linked the recent GitHub outage.

If you can self-host a password manager, then in the case of GitHub [0] going down every month you can self-host your Git repositories yourself, especially if you have projects like wireguard [1] for example.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32735734

[1] https://git.zx2c4.com

yes but don't you still need a 'license key' to unlock the full set of features? E.g. sharing among a team?

No, you don’t.

Yes, but only to use the official Bitwarden server. The Vaultwarden project is an alternate server implementation that does not require a license key.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com