Rootless Podman :) It requires you to learn a little bit of new syntax, for example, the way you mount volumes and pass environment variables can be slightly different, but there’s nothing that hasn’t worked for me.

I’m using this on uBlue uCore, which I would also strongly recommend for security reasons.

I switched and was very glad to do so. You increase your security and so far I haven’t seen any downside. Every container I’ve tried has worked without issues, even complex ones.

That wouldn’t stop page views from being counted.

Touche.

I can confirm that Bazzite works flawlessly on a Razer Blade 14 without any additional configuration. Just installed from ISO and it was perfect.

it doesn’t specify which ones, though.

OP specifically stated that “They deleted the fact that they are a metasearch engine”.

Which goes back to my original point that the post is pointless as OP is either wrong or being intentionally misleading.

The page you linked clearly explains that they use other search engine sources, which makes your post either wrong or intentionally misleading:

Our search results also include anonymized API calls to all major search result providers worldwide, specialized search engines like Marginalia, and sources of vertical information such as Wolfram Alpha, Apple, Wikipedia, Open Meteo, Yelp, TripAdvisor, and other APIs. Typically, every search query on Kagi will call a dozen or so different sources simultaneously

The draw is that you cannot screw them up. Non-power users are the ones who will get the most out of them!

I know that I’ll never get a call from my friend saying, “I ran this command I found on an Ubuntu forum, and now my system won’t boot…”

As a counterpoint, I installed Bazzite on a Blade 14 for a heavy gaming friend who was leaving Windows, and they have had no issues whatsoever.

I personally use Bluefun, and again, no issues at all. Incredibly good experiences on both.

I can’t imagine what you mean by needing more work to configure, they both worked out of the box with no configuration.

They’re not really comparable since Bitwarden has the source available for auditing and Proton Pass (server) does not.

I’m not aware of any other enterprise password management where the server source is available and auditable. Proton certainly is not.

What features will depend on the close-source part, and which do not?

There are definitely some terminology issues here.

The SDK is not closed source, you can find the source here: https://github.com/bitwarden/sdk

It might not be GPL open-source, but it is not closed either.

Other than that, I agree with your points. I don’t agree with the kneejerk hysteria from many of the comments - it’s one of the worst things about FOSS is how quick people are to anger (I am not referring to you here).

But all of that still doesn’t explain what their goal of introducing the proprietary SDK is.

Let’s wait and see before we get out the pitchforks.

Sorry that’s my mistake - I should have said “source available”, rather than “open source”. IMO, being source available is the critical component of a password manager like Bitwarden, and is what I meant when I referred to their main competitive advantage.

They might also choose to be open source and fix this specific issue and return to GPL-compatibility, but remaining source available would seem to be the more critical factor.

Well, then it would be nice to hear from them an explanation on why they decided to violate the GPLv3

Lucky for you, they provided that explanation:

1. This is a bug/mistake.
2. Our goal is to make sure that the SDK is used in a way that maintains GPL compatibility.
3. We will fix this.

That may or may not be the case, but the comment I replied to said they locked the thread with “no explanation”.

What part changed the code to closed source?

Nothing in the article or in the Bitwarden repo suggests that it’s moving away from open source

Gitlab has demonstrated its commitment to keep the core of their product, though limited in features, free and open source. As of now, BW’s clients cannot even be compiled without the proprietary SDK anymore.

None of that makes Bitwarden not open source. Not only that, they specifically state this is a bug which will be addressed.

I would go as far as to say that Bitwarden’s main competitive advantage and differentiation is that it’s open source. They would be insane to stop that.

That would be an issue if they were not open source. Them making their own SDK proprietary is not a pitchfork issue.

Open source !== Non-proprietary

I would go as far as to say that Bitwarden’s main competitive advantage and differentiation is that it’s open source. They would be insane to change that.

The explanation is the second-to-last comment before it got locked. 🤦

This hysteria is really stupid.