I think it would have been better if the new version with less features was packaged separately as keepassxc-minimal as was raised in the discussion and not as a "rugpull" by replacing the existing keepassxc package.
Security needs to work with user interests in mind, not against them.
Another alternative is to use the flatpak version of keepassxc, then use Flatseal (the flatpak permission manager) to reduce what permissions it has (ie. remove network, assign only specific directory access, etc)
I never got any of the browser integrations to work, no matter what I tried. Finally I gave up trying and learned to love the separation since it brings more peace of mind, less attack vectors.
I think it would have been better if the new version with less features was packaged separately as
keepassxc-minimalas was raised in the discussion and not as a "rugpull" by replacing the existingkeepassxcpackage.Security needs to work with user interests in mind, not against them.
It's a valid point, I am 50/50 here, it will be valid to offer
keepassxc-fulland offer by default the most secure version.I agree
Another alternative is to use the flatpak version of keepassxc, then use Flatseal (the flatpak permission manager) to reduce what permissions it has (ie. remove network, assign only specific directory access, etc)
I love and trust KeePassXC.
I never got any of the browser integrations to work, no matter what I tried.
Finally I gave up trying and learned to love the separation since it brings more peace of mind, less attack vectors.
Same same.
I am at the same side of the camp :)