Llewellyn

but no, everyone seemed to jump to conclusions

And I'm certain that it has served as the catalyst for the bitwarden decision.

Keepass could have backdoors too. The difference is: authors of those backdoors are not from the same company, which I use as cloud storage.

I find risk slightly bigger when you encrypt your private data with the product of the company and store that encrypted data on servers of the same company.

Why: because if they have some backdoor now or plans to introduce it in future, they have all the time in the world to apply that backdoor to your data. Without you knowing it.

That different FOSS client stores your data on their company's server. It's an important factor, IMO.

If it was backdoored, many people would be calling that out.

In theory. And not necessarily soon. Don't forget the context of this thread: we compare bitwarden with keepass, which does not offer to you your password base on their server side.

I have an even better idea: make tool creators and / or CEO of the company, using the tool, liable for all tool's mistakes and hallucinations.

Which has the same concept as the LLM under the hood, hasn't it?

encrypted is the key word

Partially agree: money by itself do not maintain Linux. You need a man - willing and competent one.

We'll see, whether empty positions would be filled or not.

I imagine the sanctions preventing them from working on Linux is the least of their problems

It's even more problematic for users of Linux. Less maintainers.

for personal needs