4 ms·

now that they got all that money, I wouldn't be surprised if they killed the web app and moved away from Electron to do native apps that are harder to be messed

by g3rv4 8y ago

now that they got all that money, I wouldn't be surprised if they killed the web app and moved away from Electron to do native apps that are harder to be messed with.

deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
dwighttk 8y ago
Anything that moves away from Electron is a plus in my book
chipotle_coyote 8y ago
I'd love a better-performing, less memory-intensive and, well, more native Slack app; I'm all for that part. The "harder to mess with" part is a little more concerning. (I didn't catch the original mention of BetterSlack a few days ago, so ironically, your "Welp, gotta withdraw this!" message here is the first I've heard of it. This seems to be my usual timing with such things, though...)
saagarjha 8y ago
> to do native apps that are harder to be messed with As someone who messes with native apps: this really isn't true, at least in my experience. Native apps tend to follow platform paradigms, which usually make them reasonably well designed and structured–sometimes more so than web applications. Usually adding functionality is simply a matter of finding the class that manages the component, rather than digging thorough a bunch of broken CSS (for IE 6 support) and minified goop.
- g3rv4 8y ago
  oh, yeah... that's something I want to look into
- fbmac 8y ago
  are you thinking about opensource? I don't think it would be opensource
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Nope. There are ways to reverse engineer closed source apps and inject code into them.
    - TeMPOraL 8y ago
      Also, depending on the platform, if a native application is following the platform guidelines, then quite a lot of things you want to change might be located in data files or "resource" section of the executable. I haven't been messing much with Windows executables for quite a while, but back in the day, I'd "improve" many programs by just editing their resources.
  - dx87 8y ago
    You do it the same way exploit writers do. Attach a debugger to the process, find the memory address of the resource you want to modify, overwrite the address with the address of the modified resource you want to execute. You could also just use the debugger to force the program to execute functions with arguments you specify, that way you don't have to worry about mucking with the memory.
    - saagarjha 8y ago
      Usually you'd create a dynamic library that interposes a function, so you don't have to much around with using a debugger. This way you have a persistent modification that's much more resilient to changes caused by app updates. Exploit writers generally have different goals: their thing only really needs to work once, and only with the current configuration, since usually the bug they're relying on gets patched in the next version.

by g3rv4 8y ago

now that they got all that money, I wouldn't be surprised if they killed the web app and moved away from Electron to do native apps that are harder to be messed with.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

dwighttk 8y ago

Anything that moves away from Electron is a plus in my book

chipotle_coyote 8y ago

I'd love a better-performing, less memory-intensive and, well, more native Slack app; I'm all for that part. The "harder to mess with" part is a little more concerning. (I didn't catch the original mention of BetterSlack a few days ago, so ironically, your "Welp, gotta withdraw this!" message here is the first I've heard of it. This seems to be my usual timing with such things, though...)

saagarjha 8y ago

> to do native apps that are harder to be messed with As someone who messes with native apps: this really isn't true, at least in my experience. Native apps tend to follow platform paradigms, which usually make them reasonably well designed and structured–sometimes more so than web applications. Usually adding functionality is simply a matter of finding the class that manages the component, rather than digging thorough a bunch of broken CSS (for IE 6 support) and minified goop.

g3rv4 8y ago
oh, yeah... that's something I want to look into
fbmac 8y ago
are you thinking about opensource? I don't think it would be opensource
- saagarjha 8y ago
  Nope. There are ways to reverse engineer closed source apps and inject code into them.
  - TeMPOraL 8y ago
    Also, depending on the platform, if a native application is following the platform guidelines, then quite a lot of things you want to change might be located in data files or "resource" section of the executable. I haven't been messing much with Windows executables for quite a while, but back in the day, I'd "improve" many programs by just editing their resources.
- dx87 8y ago
  You do it the same way exploit writers do. Attach a debugger to the process, find the memory address of the resource you want to modify, overwrite the address with the address of the modified resource you want to execute. You could also just use the debugger to force the program to execute functions with arguments you specify, that way you don't have to worry about mucking with the memory.
  - saagarjha 8y ago
    Usually you'd create a dynamic library that interposes a function, so you don't have to much around with using a debugger. This way you have a persistent modification that's much more resilient to changes caused by app updates. Exploit writers generally have different goals: their thing only really needs to work once, and only with the current configuration, since usually the bug they're relying on gets patched in the next version.