I'm a (very) long-time Linux user, and somewhat sad to say, Windows often seems like a better "client" OS (e.g., for connecting to Linux servers).

I retry the Linux GUI occasionally, but usually bounce off within a few days. Maybe I'm doing it wrong.

Obviously, Linux and Mac updates are problem-free.

Linux updates are famously vastly more convenient and reliable than Windows or Mac updates. No forced updates, usually no restart required, usually no breaking changes, usually no BS. I can't say that about either Mac or Windows.

Linux just doesn't tell you when you need to reboot. You (or the package manager) has to know that updating something will affect a library that a running program has loaded, and you need to restart it to actually patch your system.

Some package managers handle it better than others, but the popular idea of "never need to restart to update" is super misleading when the reality is "updates on disk, doesn't update in-memory unless you restart that program". Windows' file locking system is really inconvenient, but it does have some knock-on benefits.

Well, I had my workstation in a broken state after updates many more times on Linux (Gentoo, Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Arch) than on Windows. Actually, I haven't ever experienced these "broken" updates on Windows 10.

The update process might be more convenient and more transparent on Linux but it's definitely not as stable as on Windows.

Tell that to the two machines that were rendered unbootable because of a recent Ubuntu update.

Mac updates are definitely problematic, but I honestly can't remember the last time running apt dist-upgrade has ever broken anything on Debian.

I've heard good things about NixOS. In any case, they're usually clearer about what's being upgraded.