1Password Replied to My Disappointment
nicolalosito.it
nicolalosito.it
> Most importantly my entire family uses it. You know how difficult it was to get them to use a password manager consistently. [...] I asked my parents whether they knew of linux or dhh and they do not. Most people dont. They will ask: why move if its working and no issue with the software itself. [...] Say I find a new one, am I suppose to research what their corporate policy is and who they support. Sorry, I have a life to live.
It's just such an uphill battle to get anyone you care about to use a password manager, getting them to switch it out unless it stops working would probably be ever harder.
it apparently imports the password vaults painlessly.
i’ll check it out tonight and if it is that easy, it’ll be my new rec for people.
If it requires me to get my mom to migrate accounts, remove 1password, install bitwarden, write notes about how things worked in 1password and how those specific things are now different, then personally for me this wouldn't be "super easy".
When I looked at migrating away my family from 1Password, self-hosted Bitwarden has seen like the best potential setup, yet still not perfect enough to warrant a move as it's a huge hassle to teach people the right way to use password managers. Although maybe if it's similar enough, they might not even notice the difference?
I have a shared vault with my partner, which was easy to transfer and re-share. She’s tech savvy, so no issues there, but it didn’t seem any more complicated to me than setting up 1password was.
For other family members, I have tried for years to get them onto macs, mostly successfully, and so for them I just recommend apple’s builtin thing anyway.
apparently bitwarden can import data vaults super easily from 1passwd.
guess i’ll be recommending clients to bitwarden from here.
Importing was truly super easy, but bitwarden has some kind of latency issue compared to 1p on the same machine and the same browser. 1p was always a smooth and unobtrusive experience, you will be extremely aware of BW's presence.
I don't care if the guy who made my hammer is a Pastifarian I care how well the hammer hammers, I don't care if my accountant likes to dress up as a skunk and go to conventions demanding people address him by Sir Reginald Stinkington as long as he does a good job at my taxes.
In this case it seems the concern is that the company donated to an OS project that is headed by a guy whom you don't like.... That just seems like there are plenty of other problems to address in the world.
On a liberal-ness scale from 1 to 10 I'm an 11, and even I can't imagine that many folks would read what DHH actually said and jump to the conclusions that these people did. This is not a Godwins law case... The dude just wants some homeless people to stop shitting in the bushes in public.
Either some people have poor literacy skills, or they just want to be mad.
Your situation would describe something like Panda antivirus. They're known for funding scientology. I'd rather not buy from them, but honestly I also don't know if the competitors are worse. Perhaps that Norton guy has flipped swastikas all over his basement and that Kaspersky dude also runs an illicit brothel in south-west Asia on the side. Who knows.
I, for one, also wouldn't know why it matters what the toolmaker voted or to what organisation he donated to. Voting is considered everyones own private business. That's because some people can't stand it if others disagree with their choice, but democracy doesn't work that way. If people are coerced by peer pressure to tell what they voted and it's contentious, they could be inclined to cast a dishonest vote.
I agree. I'm tired of repeated bad faith interpretations of anyone who shows even the slightest disagreement with the current political milieu. Opinions that were considered anodyne in 2010 are now "far right, "fascism", and "genocide". This whole approach is grossly undemocratic as it treats half the country as a problem to be solved or worked around. This is far more authoritarian than stuff supported by many of the supposed fascists.
Obama was pro-deporting illegal immigrants and anti-gay marriage at one point.
The deportations aren’t the fascistic part, all that other stuff is?
Generally championing the removal of rights IS seen as fascistic - so removing gay marriage in 2026 would be a good example. That differs from 2008, before the right was universally won, however.
In both cases it seems like you’re minimizing some serious differences, or either not arguing in good faith or extremely confused about why people are calling things fascist these days.
I have examples to help: Starting a war without Congress? That’s fascist. Ignoring the courts? Also fascist. Pardoning J6 traitors? Fascist. Using the presidency to enrich yourself? Threatening the news, comedians, and artists you don’t like? Threatening your allies (Canada)? Putting your name and image all over things? Taking large gifts to swing favors, even whole jets? Minimizing and interrupting science and the arts, especially any that goes against your investments? Interfering with the courts and trying to use right wing weirdos to claim that we have a “unitary executive”? Interfering with the post office, closing polling places, and partisan redistricting?
Those things, especially taken holistically, are very indicative of fascism. But I can’t see how they wouldn’t have been considered the same in 2010?
I'll leave it you to decide if advocating that your country deport the homeless people who are publicly defecating in the bushes makes you into actual Hitler (as he's been compared to even in this post).
[0] https://world.hey.com/dhh/wolves-sheep-and-gypsies-ba44af6a
He's saying that he wants the homeless people who poop in the bushes deported because like wolves there are too many, and they're dangerous. People who poop in public are like that. It has very little to do with racism as far as I can tell.
I'm as liberal as they come, but I draw the line at shrubbery-shitting.
I was trying to reinforce it by saying the wolf comparison is a current public safety concern and has nothing to do with comparing Romani to actual animals.
Because wolves are being used as a dogwhistle/proxy for "migrants" by the far right.
Denmark has a problem with wolves crossing into Denmark. So the far right gives speeches about what a menace wolves are, they don't belong here, they don't deserve to be here, they're not FROM here" and so on - while doing a lot of theatrical smiling and winking, or just shifting right into talking about immigrants and migrants, "totally separately and unconnected, bro! I just wanted to talk about them both while i was here!"
You might want to not take anything David Hamburger Helper says at face value given he perpetuates far-right conspiracies / racist tropes like "Pakistani rape gangs."
That doesn't sound like a far right position though, just advocating for less or even no migration (from outside EU I guess).
Romania is part of the EU, when DHH suggests they are wolves that need to be deported, where is he suggesting they be deported to?
The history of their arrival in Romania, around 1370, is presented below.
Bear in mind the specific "gypsies" he had a bit of a rant about may well have been in 'his' country for a few generations already.
> That doesn't sound like a far right position though
And yet, they were on Hitler's list that included Jews, Gays, Disabled, Pinko's, etc.
Left, right, north or south on the political compass, all parties are in agreement about this, and thousands of people are deported from Denmark every year without Alligator Alcatraz concentration camps or other platitudes about nazism.
[1] https://europa.eu/youreurope/citizens/residence/residence-ri...
I'm guessing by the quotes on "gypsies" that these are not the Roma that have been in and out of Finland and Denmark since the 16th century .. but apparently still being used as a slur after several hundred years?
~ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finnish_Roma
Ah, well, baby steps.
Regarding terminology, many call themself "mustalainen" (literally "blackie", basically same as "gypsy" I guess) themselves. Although it can be considered offensive in some context, it's not exactly the same as dropping the n-word.
People just WANT to be mad, and they want this guys poor choice of words to mean he's somehow advocating for ethnic cleansing or violence or something. He's just an average conservative with an anti-immigration stance. Not a monster.
I never really took the conservative whining about cancel culture seriously, but I'm starting to understand how being caught up in something like this could drive someone from middle right to far right.
Current causes du jour for the left are defending a mother who killed her 3 children and an illegal immigrant who stabbed and killed a woman in broad daylight... Tell me in what world that's normal?
The lady that killed her kids went cuckoo, killed her kids and jumped out a window almost killing herself. Nobody is defending baby-murder, they're just saying 'Yeah, crazy people should get help BEFORE this junk happens.' The jurors agreed that she wasn't responsible for her actions at the time, and they weren't all left wing.
The other one... I think that you're talking about Carmen Lizet Puch? Literally no-one anywhere is defending that one. Maybe some weirdos on fringe internet forums, because there's always another nut out there willing to defend anything... Nobody in the mainstream from either side is defending it, but some right-wing folks are intentionally strawman'ing it as if someone were.
There's a lot of BS coming from both sides that could be avoided if the larger world followed the HN advice to always argue against the best version of the other persons argument, rather than to try and construct the weakest possible version and attack that.
You're literally inventing facts in your head. The jury was hung and a mistrial was just declared.
Nothing about my point changes. You're just looking for something about it to attack by trying to find the worst version of it again.
We're all (presumably) human, and we all make mistakes in phrasing, grammar, etc. Most of us don't have the time or motivation to craft every sentence into a finely honed razor of logical and grammatical accuracy, and shouldn't have to just to be understood.
DHH's statements were the same sort of thing. He could have said exactly the same thing with different words and nobody would have been angry, but he shouldn't have to.
People just WANT to find a reason to hate each other.
Nevertheless - I can empathize with your perspective if you believe he just said "he doesn't like people that move to his country and poop on the streets", because without knowing any previous history the reaction seems to escalate way too quickly. But there is a lot of context! And while you may disagree even after reading most of it, you can hopefully somewhat understand where people are coming from.
Even if you give DHH the benefit of the doubt by e.g. assuming he was unaware of his chosen metaphor's historical context regarding calls for deportations, he hasn't clarified or retracted or updated or whatever'ed anything. Given all his context over the years, I don't see how you can argue the issue to objectively be "he doesn't like people that move to his country and poop on the streets".
Hardly a conspiracy theory or a racist trope if it's true.
https://www.news18.com/world/pakistani-rape-gangs-operated-a...
The "official report" that gets bandied about by Reform UK is a fairly selective cut down from some other actual report on child abuse in the UK that puts more perspective on the full scale of the issue.
This is not "homeless pooping in the bushes," but just "gypsies". And the (very, very intentional) juxtaposition of killing wolves to deporting an entire ethnic group is revolting.
"There's absolutely nothing racist or xenophobic in saying that Denmark is primarily a country for the Danes, Britain primarily a united kingdom for the Brits, and Japan primarily a set of islands for the Japanese."
I interpret him to be advocating for less immigration, and maybe some deportations of criminal types. He's allowed to.
Personally, I disagree with him, but we're all adults. We're allowed to disagree and still respect each other. That's the basis of society.
He's not advocating for violence and the hyperbole some people are coming up with is way overblown when compared to what he actually said.
He is an average right-wing adult. Not some rabid fascist who wants death-camps.
I think that is a lot more extreme than the average UK right-wing adult.
[1] Follow the link in his second paragraph and compare with the numbers he gives in that paragraph.
> When wolves get out of control, you shoot them. When gypsies take over public spaces, you deport them. This isn't hard, it isn't cruel. It's the basic logic of self-preservation.
https://jakelazaroff.com/words/dhh-is-way-worse-than-i-thoug...
https://tekin.co.uk/2025/09/the-ruby-community-has-a-dhh-pro...
Jake's blog post points out how David Hamburger Helper is quite skilled at running right up to the line but not crossing it explicitly.
His type is great at using weasel words and dog whistles. The kind of person who thinks he's clever for using hyperlinks in their blog posts to imply the shit they don't have the balls to say outright while going "tee hee I'm so clever for making every mention of Obama's name in my blog post a linking to the wikipedia article about bananas." (David Hamburger Helper didn't actually do this, it's an illustrative example.)
In the US, conservatives pre-you-know-who would say things like "hard working Americans" (ie "not urban blacks on welfare taking public transit and using their food stamps to buy cigarettes and potato chips") or "American family values" (ie "not the gays") and so on.
You got a good point, it's not always clear what people try to imply, on the other hand however I have experienced many times that interpretations were not really based on what was actually said/written.
I like the first article in that regard as it is based on quoted sections. It does quite hard framing on what's actually written, but at least it's easier to judge the merit of the argument when it's side by side with the original quote it's based on.
Sure RoR is nice, and he's a asshole. Go ahead and use RoR, and don't admire him or value his deep thoughts in any other way.
It's like the Iced Earth singer drama, or Kevin Spacey. I admire their work, I enjoy their performances, still I think their actions are deplorable and will be happy if they are brought to justice.
I also don't think that your portrayal of the text is accurate.
However, from DHH:
> Before this can be an amazing system for everyone, it first has to be an amazing system for me, personally.
By DHH's own words, all money currently is 100% spent on DHH's desires. That is a contribution to an individual.
Additionally, Guido never had exclusive control over the Python Software Foundation, from what I can see.
If Guido was the only person responsible for the Python Software Foundation, its only board member, its only share holder that the board is responsible to, and was designing Python for the use-case of a single person, himself, and he was soliciting donations, then yes I would consider those donations to effectively be a contribution to an individual. Of course I would.
From a couple days ago. That thread went about as it should. Funny watching folks weirdly show up to this one pretend indifference or to try to cast mock back at those who have standards, care, and wish to see a world with some dignity. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49509876
Omacom foundation is funding good open source dev work. I see nothing wrong with that, and their response was perfectly reasonable.
If you think you can do better, start a competing foundation. Whinging about it just makes you lose all objectivity; now your opinions on actual technology are less relevant as your personal bias is on full display.