> The big engineering shops (like Google) have been building microupdates directly into their software to ensure that fixes directly reach users as a priority over (e.g.) being fixed in the Chrome code repository.
Yes, no. Do not even think about doing that.
You cannot, should not, and must not "microupdate" code running on users machines without their consent.
Also, the whole idea is completely insane. "We might have unpatched 0days in the field, so to mitigate that, we shall add arbitrary and remote code execution via the cloud"
___
And even if you were to think that taking a page out of googles book - you know, the company known for being laser focused on having the wrongest opinions - is a good idea, you shouldn't do so for free.
Live patching is something enterprises pay a lot of money for. Making it a Foss expectation is insane.
Yes, no. Do not even think about doing that. You cannot, should not, and must not "microupdate" code running on users machines without their consent.
Also, the whole idea is completely insane. "We might have unpatched 0days in the field, so to mitigate that, we shall add arbitrary and remote code execution via the cloud"
___
And even if you were to think that taking a page out of googles book - you know, the company known for being laser focused on having the wrongest opinions - is a good idea, you shouldn't do so for free.
Live patching is something enterprises pay a lot of money for. Making it a Foss expectation is insane.