upvote
The real sin is combining security updates with feature updates. An argument can be made for enforced security updates(1). There is no good argument for forcing feature updates.

Most security-only updates have a low risk of interfering with with the user or causing instability. Most feature updates have a high risk of doing so.

(1) Although I think there should be some way of disabling even those, even if that way is hard to find and/or cumbersome to keep the regular users away.

reply
Alright, I can buy that. Although from a dev POV I can also appreciate the not-fun of testing a combinatorial explosion of security updates vs features.
reply
The problem is that there's dozens of security updates every month, so even if you can skip feature updates, you'll have to reboot every Patch Tuesday anyway.

Even the Server Core edition, which has a much smaller "surface area" needs reboots almost every month.

reply
To be fair, they just need to bring hotpatching out of Intune/B2B licenses.
reply
If it was kernel level only, maybe. But why does windows seem like it needs to restart after every little update?
reply
I'm the wrong person to ask about that. I've gone ages between Debian reboots while applying regular updates, and I'm not sure what it is about the Windows model that requires a reboot after patching a few things.
reply
Fedora also wants to reboot to install (dnf) updates offline, as I understand it's to prevent potential instability from running processes getting confused when their files get swapped out under their feet.

It's also good since you can't swap out the kernel without rebooting.

I assume Microsoft took the same approach, just replace everything offline then reboot into a fully up-to-date system without any chance of things in RAM still being outdated.

reply
> It's also good since you can't swap out the kernel without rebooting.

Yeah you can. Ksplice.com We got bought by Oracle so it's in their ecosystem but the technology exists.

reply