Is it fair to compare your Linux Server to your Windows Desktop? My Windows Server has 4 options for handling updates:

1) Automatically install and schedule a reboot.

2) Download but let me choose to install.

3) Tell me there's updates but let me choose to download and install.

4) Don't check for updates.

Nothing he described is in any way limited to servers. Even kernel live patching is available to Ubuntu desktop users for free: https://www.ubuntu.com/livepatch

And if Linux on the Desktop met his needs then he wouldn't be running Windows Desktop.

My point is that Windows Desktop is not Windows Server so if you're going to compare a Linux Server to Windows, then you should compare it to the equivalent Server variant.

> if you're going to compare a Linux Server to Windows

Lorkki's point was that this was not a thing that happened in the comment you replied to. Linux servers and desktops operate in the same way. The laptop I'm typing this on has 3 months uptime.

The original comment was about the regularity of updates and the complaint that Windows requires reboots more often. The op then compared his Linux Server's uptime to his Windows Desktop.

I simply said that wasn't a fair comparison because Windows Server doesn't require you to reboot.

You guys are arguing that Linux is Linux and I'm not disagreeing with you. Linux loads executable into memory before running them, Windows doesn't. So files on Linux can be updated/overwritten without reboot. That's a technical hurdle that can't easily be overcome.

The downside of that feature is that it's a hell of a lot easier to have a Linux system not come back up when it reboots because of drive failures or corruption. I've had that bite me in the ass a handful of times.

Regardless, my point was that if you need a system to have ridiculous uptime there is a version of Windows for that. I would argue that you absolutely do not need your laptop to be up for 3 months at a time.

I run Windows because that's what my job requires. I also use Linux for personal stuff. This is hardly a unique situation.

For some of us the year of the Linux desktop is long past. A modern OS that doesn't require frequent reboots is one of the perks.

IME this isn't really true on desktop machines. I've had a few crashes/issues over the years:

* Trying to open a KDE app halfway through a KDE upgrade - crash.

* Trying to open a new tab in firefox after an update - crash.

* Updating an arch system - sound broke when rebooted, that was a frustrating holiday.

I usually reboot after an update if I see anything big like KDE/firefox/gnome/system being updated just in case.

Which is why the Red Hat and friends crowd is pushing for true offline updates for desktop systems. I'm using it on Fedora right now and it works surprisingly well. The UI is quite ugly since it's basically just PackageKit fighting with systemd over the tty output but it works.

I turned off automatic updates after I was waking up in the morning to a ton of lost work more than once a week as a result of automatic updates. At one point I was seriously considering installing Linux and using a Windows VM it was so bad. I really feel bad for Windows 10 Home users who can't do this.

Why did you go a whole week without saving your work?

I read it as: >I turned off automatic updates after I was waking up in the morning to a ton of lost work more than once a week as a result of automatic updates. He would go to sleep with his computer left on daily. At least a week it would have restarted on him having expected that the computer would have stayed in the same state that he left it. Not that he would go a whole week without saving his work.

Not the author, but I regularly leave my computer with a debugging session open (because it's 7pm and it's time to go home). If Windows reboots, it sometimes takes hours to reproduce the bug and reach the same breakpoints again.