It lets you remotely control a server as if you were sitting in front of a screen and keyboard directly attached to it.
I was really sceptical of the CTOs first response, but this does actually seem to be genuinely good news.
Maybe you want to read the comment by kspearrin in that Github issue again. They are clearly moving away from open source. He explicitly states that they are in the process of moving more code to their proprietary "SDK" library.
It is really not just a packaging bug. If you read that comment of the Bitwarden person a little further, you'll notice that he's talking about that proprietary "SDK" library that they are integrating with their clients. Even if they manage to not actually link it directly with the client, but rather let the client talk to that library via some protocol - it doesn't make the situation any better. The client won't work without their proprietary "SDK", no matter if they remove the build-time dependency or not.
Perhaps the hard dependency was a mistake, but not them moving more and more code to their proprietary library. It appears that their intent is to make the client mostly a wrapper around their proprietary library, so they can still claim to have an open source GPLv3 piece of software. What good is that client if you can only use it in conjunction with that proprietary library, even if you can build it without that dependency?
BitWarden already has lots of clients.
Does it? I'd be very much interested to know. I've been looking for other clients before, because I didn't like the sluggishness of the Electron client, but couldn't find any usable clients at all. There are some projects on Github, none of which seemed to be in a usable state. Perhaps I have been missing something.
This is being blown a bit out of proportion though. All they are saying is the official SDK may have some non-free components going forward. So what? It’s a private company, they can do what they want. Or the community can just fork it and move forward with a free one if they want, but it’s just not going to be in the official BitWarden clients. Hardly news or a big deal.
Nobody said that they can't do that (although people rightfully questioned that their changes are indeed comatible with the GPLv3). I very much disagree that this isn't a big deal, though.
At least 900VA capacity
Just being pedantic here, but VA is a power rating, not a capacity rating. A UPS has both a power rating that tells you how much power it can deliver at any given moment and a capacity that tells you for how long it can do so.
Are you sure there is exactly one DHCP server running?
That's good, I never liked the clunky .home.arpa domain.
The guide mentions:
Your ISP will give you the first 64 bits, and your host machine will have the last 64 bits.
This isn't correct. While some ISPs do give you the first 64 bit (a /64 prefix), this isn't recommended and not terribly common either. An ISP should give its users prefixes with less than 64 bit. Typically a residential user will get a /56 and commercial users usually get a /48. With such a prefix the user can then generate multiple /64 networks which can be used on the local network as desired.
I wouldn't run it as a router due to its high power consumption, but it would be a fine computer for retro gaming for games up until ~2005 if you add a graphics card.
Why? Even 1080p is more than what is usually needed for such a KVM solution. It is not like this is meant for doing remote work on a computer or anything like that.