You're shifting more work onto distros and users that shouldn't be work in the first place, and basically preventing non-linux literate people from using their OS.

If I install software on MacOS or Windows, I don't have to care if it was packaged for an older version etc, or that my distro may not package a dependency.

Maybe you should, those dependencies may contain vulnerabilities.

> shouldn't be work in the first place.

It seems very much intentional. You could just keep multiple different, vulnerable versions around and keep everything working. Instead distros say "Nope. We support exactly one version. Update or die."

That is also why you have runtimes, grafting, support sunset,... . I agree that a different trade off makes much more sense for desktops. For servers though...

Most updates aren't security updates. Not all vulnerabilities in a library affect all consumers of that library. Distros don't have every library packaged. Distros often are not often willing shipping patched versions of dependencies. Distros often offer out of date versions of libraries.

No. The libraries are not "out of date" but intentionally static. These static foundations are what companies pay lots of extra money for with windows ltsc, red hat, oracle, SuSE etc.

> distros don't have every library packaged.

Exactly. And for those that are packaged they say "these are the versions we support. If you want to us to do the support work, use these". Again for stuff like windows ltsc that means I install version X now and want this to be supported for the next 5 years. If I instead install a consumer version of windows it means X will be out if support by then and I am expected to have upgraded to X+1, X+2, X+3 during these 5 years.

Case in point, Firefox has multiple current versions: 102 ESR and 111. Both get regular updates and neither is "out of date".