That’s true. But they do give you easy, portable, site specific passwords. No apps or database syncing required.

If you just want to log in to Lemmy on a work computer at lunch it seems a good option to me.

There’s a few. LessPass is one that has been going a few years.

They actually did somewhat start Edge from scratch originally. They made EdgeHTML as a rewrite of the IE 11 trident engine.

In the end they abandoned it and moved over to chromium. One of the reasons being Google intentionally breaking their sites for EdgeHTML.

Is there a difference between networking approaches?

With rootful podman containers the only difference I noticed is that bridge networks aren’t isolated by default.

Why would you need to reconfigure the port mappings?

I understood it as a technical limitation imposed by the changes Europe are demanding. They now have to allow different browser engines, so they can’t just use Safari under the hood for PWAs. They will need some UI and the technical underpinning to allow the browser engine to be selected.

The best way I find to think about it is a padlocked box.

The public key is a box with an open padlock on it. I can give it to anyone. If someone puts a message inside the box they can lock the padlock, but they don’t have the key to open it again.

I keep the key private. If someone sends me a locked box that has my padlock on it, only I have the key to open it and read the message.

Wayland does only do the most basic stuff and leaves everything else to the compositor (aka Gnome or KDE). That means every compositor will implement their own hacky version of the missing functionality and it takes ages until that gets unified again, so that apps can actually use that functionality.

Would this functionality be mostly the same? Could they get together to make a shared libcompositor that implements the bulk of the functionality? Or is it so tied to specifics of the desktop environment that there’s little commonality. In which case, Wayland not doing it would be the right call.