> Utilize different database solutions such as MSSQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and MySQL/MariaDB. Only lite deployments can currently leverage these databases, standard deployments require MSSQL.
Those are the pros, but what are the cons? Surely there are limitations for it to be called "lite", else they'd have just added support for all that to the regular version.
Still needs an account on the bitwarden website for a self-hosting key. Why?
I'll stay with vaultwarden, the actually local installation.
Is it better to trust another project that may itself be compromised in some way?
I'm a paying customer of bitwarden, and I'm very happy with the service.
However, I also self-host vaultwarden for non-personal use. And when I do that, I refuse to create an online account, out of principle.
It shouldn't matter because the data it hosts is encrypted end to end.
E2EE doesn't prevent someone from decrypting your data on their end.
on their end? do you understand what a self-hosting is?
Nice!
I wonder how this stacks up to Vaultwarden, which is really good.
Neat. Glad to see an official solution for self hosting.
It's very unclear to me what the differences are between the classic installation and the lite version in terms of features.
Can anyone clarify?
Probably the most important detail is:
> Utilize different database solutions such as MSSQL, PostgreSQL, SQLite, and MySQL/MariaDB. Only lite deployments can currently leverage these databases, standard deployments require MSSQL.
Those are the pros, but what are the cons? Surely there are limitations for it to be called "lite", else they'd have just added support for all that to the regular version.