> That doesn't even matter much to me. Obviously, less time spent is better, but what really matters is the timing.
That too. When I update MacPorts, it can, sometimes, take ages. I don't care - I just continue working.
> Obviously, less time spent is better, but what really matters is the timing... On Windows the upgrade is always inconvenient, because you have no way of controlling it.
True, very good point in favor of user control. Linux has the added benefit of teaching the discipline and foresight to understand that "Hey... maybe I shouldn't run sudo pacman -Syu and reboot until I have some time set aside". Though in recent years I've found Arch to be way more stable with very few updates causing major problems.
> Though in recent years I've found Arch to be way more stable with very few updates causing major problems.
Can confirm. I've had the same Arch install for nearly 6 years now. I've borked it only once in that time, and that one was my fault for not reading the news first. Fixed it in < 5 minutes.
And I've made considerable changes in that time, including moving the entire installation from one hard disk to another.
That doesn't even matter much to me. Obviously, less time spent is better, but what really matters is the timing.
When I have to spend time upgrading my linux box, I have set time aside. I decide that I have a bit of time, and if it turns out to be a bigger job than expected, I can decide to abort and continue some other time.
On Windows the upgrade is always inconvenient, because you have no way of controlling it. Microsoft decides when the best time for you to upgrade is, and once it starts you have no means of punting on it.
Although the telemetry is certainly a problem too.