sgtnasty@lemmy.ml to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 year agoMy holy trinity of trustlemmy.mlimagemessage-square102fedilinkarrow-up1370arrow-down127file-text
arrow-up1343arrow-down1imageMy holy trinity of trustlemmy.mlsgtnasty@lemmy.ml to Memes@lemmy.mlEnglish · 1 year agomessage-square102fedilinkfile-text
minus-squareGVasco@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up6·1 year agoI might swap bitwarden by passbolt as it uses a more recent programming stack, although vaultwarden looks to be a good alternative too.
minus-squarefox [comrade/them]@hexbear.netlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up3·1 year agoDoes a more recent stack translate to any real benefits?
minus-squareapt_install_coffee@lemmy.mllinkfedilinkarrow-up2·1 year agoNot necessarily, plenty of good programs written in C89 for example. With something that is heavily library dependent, having a more recent development stack may mean better maintained libraries but definitely not a sure thing.
I might swap bitwarden by passbolt as it uses a more recent programming stack, although vaultwarden looks to be a good alternative too.
Does a more recent stack translate to any real benefits?
Not necessarily, plenty of good programs written in C89 for example.
With something that is heavily library dependent, having a more recent development stack may mean better maintained libraries but definitely not a sure thing.
No love for KeePass?