3 ms·
Software Updates: Courgette (2009)
- ksec 13y agoSomething new? This is like Old news is so exciting. And I thought there was a legal battle on going on about the usage of Courgette.
- gmac 13y agoWell, if it's made it onto the front page, I guess it's safe to assume some people think it's interesting. I submitted it because I hadn't seen these details before. Seems an admin has now added (2009) to the title, which is helpful since there's no obvious date on the page.
- est 13y agocourgette is cool, but the deassembly and reassembly process is disasterous if your machine is busy. I have significant fps drop while fullscreen gaming and chrome updating the same time. It hogs 99% of cpu and disk io
- infogulch 13y agoSince it's a background process, it really ought to be set to low priority. Doesn't really matter if it takes 15 minutes to expand the diff vs 1.
- gwern 13y ago> We want smaller updates because it narrows the window of vulnerability... We have enough users that this means more users will be protected earlier.
- finnh 13y agoYou misunderstand that sentence. They are referring to the number of updates they can deliver per unit of Google outbound bandwidth, not the amount of time it takes to run that update. The sentence that you elide with ellipses makes this clear: We want smaller updates because it narrows the window of vulnerability. If the update is a tenth of the size, we can push ten times as many per unit of bandwidth. We have enough users that this means more users will be protected earlier.
- gwern 13y agoThe exact same reasoning applies to applying the patch: if it takes 10 minutes to apply the patch with normal priority, and 30 minutes to apply in the background, then that's another 20 minutes of vulnerability for that user! Geez.