For years, many desktop applications have followed a recipe that is convenient for developers but expensive for users: packaging a website inside an application using Electron. The result usually works well and makes it easier to bring the same product to Windows, macOS and Linux, but it comes with a clear cost in size, memory usage and resource consumption.
Pake was created precisely as a response to that excess. The project, published as open source on GitHub, can turn any web page into a desktop application with a single command, using Rust and Tauri instead of packaging a full copy of Chromium with every app. Its promise is simple: much lighter applications, cross-platform support and easy generation.
The discussion is not new, but it comes back strongly every time a relatively simple application takes up hundreds of megabytes, opens several processes and consumes more RAM than many users consider reasonable. Electron has been a very useful tool for building cross-platform software, but it has also normalised a way of deploying apps where efficiency often takes a back seat.
The hidden cost of Electron
Electron allows developers to build desktop applications using web technologies. Its major advantage is that teams can reuse HTML, CSS and JavaScript while maintaining a single codebase for multiple platforms. The trade-off is well known: Electron includes Chromium and Node.js inside the application itself to bring JavaScript to the desktop and ensure consistent behaviour across Windows, macOS and Linux.
That packaging solves many compatibility problems, but it also means each application carries a heavy layer of infrastructure that users do not always see. That is why chat, productivity, music, notes or management apps can end up taking up a lot of space and consuming a fair amount of memory even when, functionally, many of them are web interfaces with notifications, menus, shortcuts and a few native integrations.
Pake takes a different route: instead of carrying a full browser inside every app, it uses the operating system’s native WebView through Tauri. The project’s own documentation highlights that its installers are usually almost 20 times smaller than Electron packages and typically stay below 10 MB on disk.
| Approach | What it does | Advantage | Cost |
|---|---|---|---|
| Electron | Packages Chromium and Node.js with the app | Compatibility and runtime control | Larger size and higher consumption |
| Tauri / Pake | Uses the system WebView and a Rust backend | Lighter apps | More dependent on native WebView |
| Pure native app | Platform-specific code | Better potential integration and performance | Higher development cost |
| PWA | Installable web app from the browser | Very light and simple | Less desktop integration |
Electron’s benefits should not be dismissed. It has allowed many companies to release desktop applications without maintaining three separate native developments. Slack, Discord, Visual Studio Code, Notion and many other popular tools have benefited from that strategy. The problem appears when that convenience becomes the default even for applications where the resource cost is no longer justified.
What Pake does and why it matters
Pake turns a URL into a desktop app. The basic usage is straightforward: install the CLI with pnpm install -g pake-cli and then run a command such as pake https://github.com --name GitHub. It also supports more advanced options, such as custom icons, window size, hidden title bars or style adjustments.
The project offers ready-made popular packages for services such as ChatGPT, Gemini, Grok, DeepSeek, YouTube, YouTube Music, Excalidraw and Twitter/X, as well as the option to build your own apps from any website. For less technical users, there is also the option to download prebuilt applications directly from the repository releases.
The technical idea is attractive because Pake does not try to reinvent the whole platform. It sits in a practical middle ground: many people want an app separate from the browser, with its own icon, window, shortcuts and cleaner experience, but they do not need to pay the cost of a full runtime for every service.
As David Carrero, co-founder of Stackscale, argues, the underlying problem is that too many applications have stopped taking responsibility for being efficient and have pushed that cost onto the user: more RAM, more CPU and more expensive hardware to compensate for increasingly heavy software. From that perspective, tools like Pake are not just an open source curiosity, but a reminder that efficiency should also be part of good development practice.
Efficiency versus convenience
The big question is whether Pake can replace Electron across the board. The short answer is no. And that is exactly why it is worth understanding where it fits.
Electron gives developers a highly controlled environment. By including Chromium, the application behaves more predictably across systems. Tauri and Pake, by contrast, rely on the operating system’s WebView, which reduces size and consumption but can introduce differences between platforms. For many simple apps that will not be a problem. For complex applications with advanced compatibility needs, extensions, debugging, internal APIs or fine-grained runtime control, Electron may remain the more convenient option.
Pake shines in a different type of use case: turning web services into lightweight desktop apps for daily use. An internal dashboard, a SaaS tool, a task manager, an AI client, an intranet, a documentation site or a simple corporate application can benefit a lot from this approach.
It also fits companies with many internal web tools that want to offer them as desktop apps without creating heavy installers. Instead of packaging each one with its own browser, they can generate lightweight wrappers with icons, windows, shortcuts and basic settings.
| Use case | Is Pake a good fit? |
|---|---|
| ChatGPT, Gemini, YouTube, SaaS dashboards | Yes, very much |
| Internal web-based tools | Yes, especially if they are simple |
| Apps with a lot of native logic | It depends |
| Complex software such as IDEs | Less likely |
| Products needing full runtime control | Electron or native may be better |
| Companies aiming to reduce endpoint footprint | Potentially very useful |
The desktop still matters
For years, many assumed everything would end up in the browser. But the desktop has not disappeared. It has changed. Many modern apps are packaged websites, but users still want independent windows, icons, notifications, shortcuts, system integration and separation between tools.
AI is also reinforcing that return. Every provider wants its own desktop app, dedicated window, local agent, file integration and permanent presence on the computer. If each of those apps arrives packaged with an entire browser, the resource problem will only grow.
That is where Pake touches an important nerve. Efficiency is not just an aesthetic issue. On computers with limited RAM, older laptops, corporate environments with hundreds or thousands of endpoints, virtual desktops or users who work with many tools open at the same time, reducing size and memory usage matters. It also matters for battery life, startup time, updates and operational security.
Tauri officially presents itself as a framework for building small, fast and secure applications using a web frontend and a Rust backend. The difference with Electron is not only about language, but also about philosophy: minimise what is packaged and rely more on the system’s own capabilities.
Lightweight does not automatically mean better
Pake should not be sold as a magic solution either. An app created with Pake still depends on the website it wraps. If the web service itself is heavy, loads too many scripts, handles memory poorly or is full of trackers, the wrapper will not fix everything. It will reduce installer size and avoid duplicating Chromium, but final efficiency will also depend on the web app itself.
Maintenance, security and trust also matter. Turning any website into an app means deciding what permissions are granted, how updates are handled, what icons or scripts are added, what configuration is applied and where prebuilt binaries are downloaded from. In business environments, the safest approach is usually to build internally, review configuration and distribute apps through controlled channels.
Even so, Pake’s message is valuable. Not every desktop application needs to carry the same burden. In an industry where it is often accepted that hardware will compensate for software inefficiency, projects like this remind us that alternatives exist.
Developer convenience should not always become a cost for the user. Sometimes, good architecture starts with something as basic as not putting an entire browser where a well-designed window would be enough.
Frequently asked questions
What is Pake?
Pake is an open source tool that turns any web page into a desktop application for macOS, Windows and Linux with a single command.
How is it different from Electron?
Electron packages Chromium and Node.js inside the application. Pake uses Tauri and the operating system’s native WebView, which greatly reduces installer size.
Does Pake replace Electron?
Not in every case. It is very useful for wrapping websites and simple tools, but complex applications may still need the control and compatibility that Electron provides.
How do you install Pake?
The basic method is to install the CLI with pnpm install -g pake-cli and then run pake URL --name Name to generate the app.
Is it safe to use prebuilt apps?
As with any downloaded binary, it is best to use official sources and check the origin. In companies, the safest option is to build internally and distribute through controlled processes.