And what do the companies take away from this? “Cool, we just won’t leave you any other options.”
And what do the companies take away from this? “Cool, we just won’t leave you any other options.”
Which features do you mean? Not disagreeing with you, I’m just curious.
So basically Arch?
They’re free to change the licence of future versions.
Only if they are still the only contributor. Once you have more contributors, it gets far tougher to change the licence.
Subsidise how? They were using their existing plan as intended and even willing ditch the grey-area parts. If CF cannot afford to offer their plans as they are, they should change the offered plans, not hunt for easy prey.
How many email accounts do you have? It might be a huge factor. I have about 7 accounts I need to check regularly and I cannot imagine doing it manually for each. I can see it working for one or maybe two though.
I wasn’t aware they added WebAuthn to the free plan recently. That’s great to hear, thanks for the correction!
I’d be perfectly okay with them just charging for Bitwarden, period. Instead they pretend it’s free but charge premium for all the most effective security features, including 2FA to their own services. Effectively it creates a group of people that use Bitwarden without access to these security features but complacent enough to not seek alternatives that would offer these features at a price acceptable for them (possibly free, like KeepassXC).
Bottom line: security shouldn’t be a premium feature. It should be either available or not at all. Never as a premium within the service.
DNS-based ad blocking is unfortunately much less effective. It’s still better than nothing though, that’s for sure.
Even if it’s supported, it doesn’t mean it needs to be installed in every system. If the user wants to use a Musl-based system, the software working only on glibc needs to be patched. At least that’s how I understood these statements.
Presumably so it can work with either libc implementation.
Or frontdoor checkbox for that matter, given that it’s the literal device owner that takes the action tripping their “security” tripwire.