Yes, the search in all the items does search in all the items. I’m talking about when you go to a specific folder and search inside it. Even though it has subfolders, it will not search in them. It is an implementation logic, those folders functioning more like tags rather than folders. That being said, LastPass does not have the option to search in folders, but it shows the results organized by folders.
I used the first one quite a lot and it was rather convenient for those applications that reload every time you open them, as I couldn’t get all the info I need in one go, and some even cleared the clipboard when starting. If it got annoying, I could instead disable it and use it like Bitwarden. As for the second one, I prefer to be in control, so I never trusted it and I never used it. Some people like it, others don’t, but it’s there.
@Peatrick @sambartle It seems like I remembered this wrong, so I will correct it. LastPass can remove individual trusted devices (2FA only), and mobile devices, but it can’t deauthorize sessions on every type of device (only mobile). So yes, it is an improvement on the side of Bitwarden.
It is not about how bad sharing is in Bitwarden. In fact, depending on your needs it can be exactly what you need. I’m not sure how much you read from it or how attentively you did, but that was never the point. For example, if you are an enterprise and you own all the logins and they are all meant to be shared (as I already explained already) it can be what you’re looking for. The sharing functionality is used as an example to make the point, because it is just so limited and focused on companies.
Just because this is how you see it in real world, it doesn’t mean this is how it really works and how it should work. Also, your comparison is flawed. Just because you share something, you don’t lose ownership to it. If I share my car with my neighbor to go on a trip, does that mean I lose ownership? Although my neighbor is driving my car and I’m the passenger, does that mean that the car is not in my possession? Moreover, with Bitwarden you don’t lose possession, but ownership. Although you can lose both if someone else desires to, irrevocably.
I simply said that as a normal user which is not a company, I do not care about the way a company deals with credentials. What you do at the company it’s with the company’s property. When you put a credential in a company vault, you’re expected to put it for the company to use, not so you can take it back.
I don’t understand why you defend this logic. Could you explain how you are benefiting from the current sharing implementation more than the expected one? Let’s take LastPass for comparison since it’s in the topic. I’m not simply using LastPass as the “golden standard” here, I’m just using it as a reference because it got the system closer to me being in control of my credentials. It’s by no means perfect, but it allows me to revoke my sharing and to keep others from deleting what is mine. If you dislike LastPass, we could use Dashlane for reference then.
You have mentioned 1password, but that one still has more options when it comes to sharing and lets you unshare, although it lacks 1 to 1 sharing, and the ability to keep your vault intact without having to duplicate items when sharing. Given that Bitwarden is similar to 1password in this feature, it’s still falling behind, not allowing you to simply un-share as in 1password, not to mention it lacking the granularity of permissions 1password offers. If Bitwarden had implemented similar functionality, I wouldn’t have too much to complain about, besides the things I just said, since I prefer to be in control of my vault and not move my items out of it just to let someone see my credentials for a few moments.
Given that disappointment seems to be the topic, care to elaborate? You made me interested in your list. Since Bitwarden has similar, but more toned down functionality for the general user, I’m really curious what you found disappointing with LastPass instead but Bitwarden does better. Hopefully you’ll offer something objective, not subjective.
What exactly can you fix by doing the Bitwarden-way? And what is so specific to Bitwarden to be called the Bitwarden-way?
And where exactly do you draw the line? Emergency access? Require master password “re-prompt” for some items? Soft delete items to “trash”? Overlay popup interface? Add more pre-defined item types? Drag and drop into folder?
There is an entire “Feature Request” section saying otherwise. And not only about LastPass, but other password managers as well. I see plenty of people talking about wanting features that other password managers have, and you saying that sounds as if Bitwarden will never improve, or at least you don’t want to.
As far as I know, as a customer, you most of the time move to where you can get the most value, depending on your needs. As a PO, you’re changing the product to better fit the larger base of customers. A product that doesn’t evolve when the need arises, will lose customers.
I don’t think that making the software more like one or another is necessarily bad, as long as you know what to take and what not to. Giving more options to the users is not a bad thing, as long as they are properly implemented.
@dangostylver Also, who is this “we” you are talking about? You’re starting to sound like you’re paid for this by the way.