The “minimal” part is incorrect; it is a super complicated container. The number of moving parts don’t leave me with any confidence that I could keep it running or fix any issues going forwards.

Mainly for security. I was originally looking at CoreOS but I liked the additional improvements by the UBlue team. Since I only want it to run containers, it is a huge security benefit to be immutable and designed specifically for that workflow.

The Ignition file is super easy to do, even for just one server (substitute docker for podman depending which you have):

Take a copy of the UCore butane file:

https://github.com/ublue-os/ucore/blob/main/examples/ucore-autorebase.butane

Update it with your SSH public key and a password hash by using this command:

# Get a password hash
podman run -ti --rm quay.io/coreos/mkpasswd --method=yescrypt

Then host the butane file in a temporary local webserver:

# Convert Butane file to Ignition file
podman run -i --rm quay.io/coreos/butane:release --pretty --strict < ucore-autorebase.butane > ignition.ign

# Serve the Igition file using a temp webserver
podman run -p 5080:80 -v "$PWD":/var/www/html php:7.2-apache

During UCore setup, type in the address of the hosted file, e.g. http://your_ip_addr:5080/ignition.ign

That’s it - UCore configures everything else during setup.___

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.

Wonderful response, and I agree completely. It echoes the thoughts I’ve tried to convey to friends in their 20s, but much more eloquently than I have managed.

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.

I think the issue was not so much that she was worse than other Olympic competitors, it’s that she was clearly not the best from Australia. That was the part that was and should be criticized. She took a spot from people who deserved it much more.

Touche.

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

You can’t know with certainty on Signal that the client and the server are actually keeping your messages encrypted at rest, you have to trust them.

With Matrix, if you self host, you are the one in control.

It’s harder to create new content than to correct existing content.

Just remember that Cloudflare decrypts and re-encrypts all your data, so they can read absolutely everything that passes through those tunnels.

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?