web/admin: use radio for client type (#5499)

* web/admin: use radio for client type

also fix search select not correctly passing all items in .selected callback

Signed-off-by: Jens Langhammer <jens@goauthentik.io>

* include unrelated typo fix

Signed-off-by: Jens Langhammer <jens@goauthentik.io>

---------

Signed-off-by: Jens Langhammer <jens@goauthentik.io>

website/blog/2023-05-04-i-gambled-against-react-and-lost/item.md

@@ -108,7 +108,7 @@ My choice of Lit came down to three factors, all of which emphasized that goal o
 
 -   **Lit used a browser-native technology**. Traditional web development often involves a lot of clashing CSS files, making it difficult to use, say, a component from one library and a different component from another. Lit doesn’t have this problem because it uses a [shadow DOM](https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Web_Components/Using_shadow_DOM) and the shadow DOM is a standard accepted by all browsers. We had flexibility on one end, with browsers, but on the other end, because these web components were browser-native, we could also use them across numerous frameworks (including React).
 -   **Lit offered better modularity.** With the shadow DOM functionality, I was able to isolate individual components and apply CSS to only those components. That meant greater flexibility because I could mix and match but it also meant more modularity. I didn’t need a giant CSS file that could cause all kinds of effects when changed. Instead, I had modular bundles of isolated components and individual CSS files.
--   **Lit didn’t require me to rebuild**. This was less an advantage of Lit and moreso a disadvantage of React. If I had chosen React, I would have had to rebuild authentik from the ground up, or use a lot of hacky workarounds to migrate at a slower pace. And once I had done that, I would have been limited, to a degree, to what React and the React community offered. There were things that were standard to browsers that I wouldn’t have had access to or would have only had access to if they had explicit React support. There were bridges between standard components and React components, but they were built by community projects and I didn’t want to get stuck relying on a project some [random person in Nebraska is thanklessly maintaining](https://xkcd.com/2347/).
+-   **Lit didn’t require me to rebuild**. This was less an advantage of Lit and more so a disadvantage of React. If I had chosen React, I would have had to rebuild authentik from the ground up, or use a lot of hacky workarounds to migrate at a slower pace. And once I had done that, I would have been limited, to a degree, to what React and the React community offered. There were things that were standard to browsers that I wouldn’t have had access to or would have only had access to if they had explicit React support. There were bridges between standard components and React components, but they were built by community projects and I didn’t want to get stuck relying on a project some [random person in Nebraska is thanklessly maintaining](https://xkcd.com/2347/).
 
 ### Lit and React is apples and oranges