[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
maybe it's 50k for the update, the rest is the licence/copy protection? Kind regards Dave Rich Tom Potts wrote: > On Friday 23 January 2009 08:31, Rob Beard wrote: > >> Hi folks, >> >> I thought you'd find this proof of bloatware amusing. >> >> Last night I was updating one of my clients sites (Windows Updates on >> Vista). I'd put in an IPCop box running Update Accelerator to try and >> ease the bandwidth use (they have a 1MBit ADSL connection). Now Update >> Accelerator downloads the updates, caches them and passes them along to >> Windows. It seemed to be taking ages though and I checked the log to >> find that one update was about 800MB. I checked the web and found that >> this update was to add a couple of words to the English & German spell >> checker. God knows how many words they were adding but at 800MB >> (compressed!) I'm starting to see why Vista takes around 15GB. That was >> a Vista update too, I hadn't started on the Office 2007 updates by then. >> > Thats strange - to add a couple of words to a linux file would normally be the > size of the words etc + the diff record. That might not be possible as you > may have added words to that dictionary so the next sensible thing would be > to have a small dictionary API so the the update can go -'add > word/description etc' and that again would be of the order of size of the > changes involved. > Oh Hang on that would of course rely on the people who know about computing > 101 and as its a Windows update that is of course not possible. > Tom te tom te tom > > > -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/linux_adm/list-faq.html