The problems highlighted in the first section are optional however. Forcing a particular authentication / device attestation method isn’t a passkey problem, it’s a provider problem. They are free to do that today with or without passkeys. Equating passkeys = bad because of that feels harsh; it is like any scenario where bad actors behave badly with any given technology.

Doesn’t the post conclude the opposite however, that you can in fact manage your own passkeys outside of any “big tech”?

I think one important detail the author missed is that passkeys are in most cases not a sensible replacement for a password. They can act as a convenient semi-permanent replacement or second factor, but you will always need a mechanism should the passkey, or device be lost, which will be a traditional password or account recovery.

If parties do not trust your particular passkey provider / system then you lose that convenience, but the spec does need someway to handle obviously flawed or broken client implementations. If all your passkeys are hanging out in plain text without a pin/biometric/other key gating their access, they are all compromised and should be rejected.

Replying from an Xperia 5 IV which is my first 21:9 display. I sympathise that they fixed the ratio but made the whole phone larger! They would also need to restore the compact line or make those slight reductions to restore it back to a more friendly size.

They added the double tap home to scroll the top of the screen down so you can reach it, and if they think that’s a necessary feature I’d argue the design is wrong!

Thanks for letting me know about the new ratio, not quite 16:9 but not as bad as 21:9.

I really wish they would ditch the elongated display ratio. It’s wasted space in landscape 99% of the time, makes the top of the display inaccessible with one hand and the phone unnecessarily large in your pocket. The premium on these could be justified when all the features hit that mark but this is poor human ux.

I tried bazzite, which is very close to kinoite, as Fedora itself had a great out of box experience, even on laptops.

Whilst there was a way to get most setups, apps and configs working it was clear I would eventually run into a piece of software that the effort to get it working was not worth it. Some software and development tools are not (yet) designed and maintained to easily work in an immutable environment.

My biggest gripe was that any interaction with os-tree meant that updates now started to take a really long time building the image with high CPU/power usage. I wasn’t ditching Windows to go back to a world of unnecessarily long updates.

For some, I can see the immutable can work well if they want an Android like experience and can accept the software catalog available. It wasn’t the right model for me, as I expected my machine to do more than point and click app install. I would be curious how your typical arch user would find it.