Our star is unusual, as well over 90% of stars are smaller (and thus longer lived). Though if you go small enough you start dealing with planets in the habitable zone being tidally locked.
The increased likelihood of being tidally locked is not the only problem with smaller stars. As a rule, larger stars are more stable and smaller stars are more active. This is made worse by the fact that the habitable zone is closer to the star for smaller stars. Most stars in the universe probably can't support life as we know it because any planet close enough to be warm would get it's atmosphere stripped off by flares.
I'm talking about continuing evolution of the life that may already be there.
Informative points about stars.
for a civilisation with advanced rocketry and telescopes similar to what we have right now, it would still be very unlikely to observe us - firstly because we've only been around at all of a tiny fraction of the time the planet exists, and secondly because despite of all the ruckus we are currently causing in the planet, we'd still be very hard to observe from sufficiently far away
https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/meet-oklo-the-earths-tw...
If human equivalent creatures had taken just 10% longer to appear the sun would have dried up all the water on the earth and wiped its atmosphere before it happened.