Some people don't have actual understanding of the meaning of security.

Security is there to keep the features usable without interruptions or risks.

E.g. plugging the computer off the network is not about security if the service needs to be accessible.

That doesn't sound right to me; its legitimate topic that a package where the core use-case is X, that package has obscure feature Y, and the mere existence of Y can cause security issues for a user even when the user never intended to use it.

Very concrete example, the whole Log4j vulnerability issue was basically just a direct implication of a feature that allowed for arbitrary code execution. Nearly no user of Log4j intentionally used that feature, they were all vulnerable because Log4j had that feature.

The fix to the CVE was effectively to remove the feature. If someone had the foresight to try to reduce Log4j to only the features that ~everyone actually used, and publish a separate Log4j-maximal for the fringe users that intentionally use that feature, it would have prevented what was arguably the worst vulnerability that has ever happened.

In the case this thread is about, no one seems to be deny that there should be a 'minimal' and 'full' versions and that the 'minimal' version is going to be more secure. The entire flame war seems to be over whether its better to take a preexisting package name and have it be a minimal one or the full one.

That is simply a tradeoff between "make preexisting users who don't use ancillary features be as secure as possible by default going forward" or "make preexisting users who do use ancillary features not broken by upgrades".

> That doesn't sound right to me; its legitimate topic that a package where the core use-case is X, that package has obscure feature Y, and the mere existence of Y can cause security issues for a user even when the user never intended to use it.

In this case it is not clear at all whether the feature is obscure. For most people it could be actually essential and the primary requirement for the whole software.

But many users were relying on these features. Hence the bug report.

This is literally the same as helping a relative to make their computer more secure by turning it off. Problem solved I guess?

If you made a mistake by shipping insecure defaults you could fix it e.g. by including a banner to use the minimal version to users that don't use the extra features. But simply rug-pulling everybody for "security" and doubling down by insulting the affected users? I really do not understand people that act like this.

> Removing features is not the most secure option possible.

If I have a program that encrypts and decrypts passwords, then the surface area is way smaller than if it also has browser integrations and a bunch of other features. Every feature has the potential to make this list longer: https://keepass.info/help/kb/sec_issues.html which applies to any other piece of software.

At the same time, people can make the argument that software that's secure but has no useful features also isn't very worthwhile. From that whole discussion, the idea of having a minimal package and a full package makes a lot of sense - I'd use the minimal version because I don't use that additional functionality, but someone else might benefit a bunch from the full version.

A password program that integrates with your browsers reduces a lot of attack surfaces. If you can't directly talk to the bower that implies the clipboard which in turns means other programs on your system can see the password.

It’s called openBSD :) (don’t get me wrong, openBSD is awesome, but the default install which is secure out of the box is a bit spartan heheh)

You misunderstand, see; these people are corporate saboteurs.

Just annoys me that he calls features "crap" just because he likely doesn't use them personally and ends that post with a random sentence claiming such a version "increases the risk of drive-by attacks" with zero evidence. The developer explains the features aren't plugins and aren't even enabled by default. Arrogance from maintainers like this from within Debian is what will hurt it far more than any external entity.

Exactly, this rude and insulting behavior is why many people shy away from open source. Not everybody has the time and mental capacity to engage in ideological battles about software architecture.

We should really hold more value to keeping existing user setups working. Breakages are incredibly damaging and might very well have a bigger impact than insecure defaults.

> he calls features "crap" just because he likely doesn't use them personally

"All of these features are superfluous and do not really belong in a local password database manager" seems to me like a pretty clear explanation of what is "crap" about them, and it seems pretty clearly not to be about personal taste.

Some people care about modularity.