I can see how Docker can simplify your deployment for your cloud-offering and that’s all fine and dandy. We’re clearly not on the same page here, but are we even on the same planet? more closed source “trust us” binary blobs which we can run. But we’ll work on support for Kubernetes”. You now, like closed source software does.Īnd what do we get as a response? “No docker is fine, really. We clearly outline that we do not want docker because it’s a complicating factor, and besides Docker images are binary blobs which only runs on systems their makers built them for. This is a reasonable expectation because Bitwarden is supposedly open-source software and heavily marketed as such. Make || npm run build || cargo build || whateverĪnd then everyone here would be happy, because they could download the source, build it and run it locally based on the source only. What I (and most people in this thread) expect from a open source project and ask for from Bitwarden is this, or the appropriate instructions for Bitwarden: git clone local-folder Hence me registering this account just to vent, in hope someone involved actually takes the time to read. There seems to be a serious disconnect between what’s being asked for here, and what’s being promised as a response in a way I don’t think I’ve ever seen in a “proper” FOSS project before.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |