▲ 1080 ▼ Anon time travels (thelemmy.club) submitted 8 months ago by Early_To_Risa@sh.itjust.works [M] to c/greentext@sh.itjust.works 132 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] anothercatgirl@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 8 months ago (3 children) the webapps are so bloated they don't even fit in small ram! permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 3 child comments replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 16 points 8 months ago (2 children) A guy at work wrote a script to automate something for a department. The script was, I don't know, sub-100 lines of JavaScript. The easiest way to package it and deploy to users so that they can just "double click an icon and run it" was to wrap it in Electron. The original source file was 8 KB. The application was 350 MB. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago Well, I don't think our antivirus would let that through anyway. But the reason we wanted an .exe is also because then I could pack it as Intune-deployed package and make it available for the users that work on the thing it's automating (there were still some manual steps needed in the process). Deploying an in-house built .exe solves the problem of the .exe not being certificate-signed, so things like SmartScreen stop blocking it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 16 points 8 months ago (2 children) A guy at work wrote a script to automate something for a department. The script was, I don't know, sub-100 lines of JavaScript. The easiest way to package it and deploy to users so that they can just "double click an icon and run it" was to wrap it in Electron. The original source file was 8 KB. The application was 350 MB. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago Well, I don't think our antivirus would let that through anyway. But the reason we wanted an .exe is also because then I could pack it as Intune-deployed package and make it available for the users that work on the thing it's automating (there were still some manual steps needed in the process). Deploying an in-house built .exe solves the problem of the .exe not being certificate-signed, so things like SmartScreen stop blocking it. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] irelephant@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 8 months ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 child) [deleted] permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 1 child comment replies: [–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago Well, I don't think our antivirus would let that through anyway. But the reason we wanted an .exe is also because then I could pack it as Intune-deployed package and make it available for the users that work on the thing it's automating (there were still some manual steps needed in the process). Deploying an in-house built .exe solves the problem of the .exe not being certificate-signed, so things like SmartScreen stop blocking it. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Alaknar@sopuli.xyz 2 points 8 months ago Well, I don't think our antivirus would let that through anyway. But the reason we wanted an .exe is also because then I could pack it as Intune-deployed package and make it available for the users that work on the thing it's automating (there were still some manual steps needed in the process). Deploying an in-house built .exe solves the problem of the .exe not being certificate-signed, so things like SmartScreen stop blocking it. permalink fedilink source parent