To the stability dispute after the system update

Today we had to start and not end the dispute with a group mate about whether Linux distributions are more stable operating systems in relation to the same beloved Windows after the upgrade procedures . The argument of the opponent in favor of Windows was simple: when updating windows, the programs will not break, but on the linux system everything is possible, and I will try to give my opinion on this issue.

So, what is stability for a desktop environment? Yes, everything is quite simple: set , updated from time to time, and after the update does not break anything . Consider the real situation in the two operating systems under consideration.

So, Windows.

Here we set up Windows , got solitaire with a sapper from the box and ... and besides jokes, we got the system without any third-party software: everything is at a minimum, if you want more, you can bet. Actually, in the current reality, the latter is not a problem: everyone has already learned to install codecs, install an office and other purchased (or impudently stale) software and can do it in 30 minutes, simultaneously playing solitaire.
Windows, like any operating system has flaws and errors, holes are discovered from time to time. Actually, the “ update ” of Windows is in fact - closing holes in security and, possibly, installing some thread of a very new and all the necessary software, such as a new MSN or firewall (sorry, backward from life, because of what I’m talking about in Windows XP). In fact, we receive updates to the system’s kernel and the software included in it, while all updates are the work of the same vendor named Microsoft.

Updating programs in Windows is a completely different song that has nothing to do with the system update function: here, each software developer comes up with something that is much more than , and with one click of the mouse, alas, deliver the whole update or say “update these 10 programs to me but don't touch this one. ” This state of affairs is caused primarily by the way of installing programs in Windows ... which, in fact, does not exist - there are tools, such as more or less standardized places, where to put the applications [Program Files, aha], and where to write temporary (or characteristic only for installation on this machine) information [Registry, aha]. To Vinduzyatniki , this seems very convenient, and the unified systems (which I will talk about below) seem to them very complicated and unnecessary things. The “ linuxoids ”, however, slowly and truly hate glamorous installers and spit on the screen if some program does not allow to install itself through the package system, but only offers a nice GUI.
')

And so, Linux.

But after installing Linux , we may have before our eyes both a command line and an empty hard disk, as well as glamor sneakers on the screen and a screw that is full of very important applications. But we have already agreed that we will consider desktop distributions that are made “for people”, for ordinary people. Yes, that's right: Ubuntu, Fedora, Mandriva, [Open] SUSE, AltLinux ... Since I recently worked with Ubuntu (I installed and configured it on a netbook that appeared in the family), I will talk about it.
After the standard installation (stupidly clicking the “next” button) of the installation, we will get the Gnome desktop, a set of software “one application per function” : from office applications to the same solitaire. In fact, everything is already working, there is no need to look for codecs for yourself - they opened up some mp3's, answered that we wanted to install the necessary software, waited ... and now Babkin is already singing from small netbook stereo speakers.
And after some time we (absolutely by chance) wanted to upgrade. Well, we turn on the system update and carefully look at the packages that are being updated: here it is ... The kernel is the same branch, only with a couple of new patches . Applications are updated and do not break .
Charming, yes? One of the arguments of my interlocutor was that the application can pull a lot of dependencies and one of them will surely break something. It’s not so: caring manteiners are not going to put only the released software in the repository - they are trying to build a stable package , patch the software so that the program works as it should and outside of its competence nothing is broken.

Well, let's face them in a hard comparison

So, we have two evils :
1) Windows , which can update only itself, nothing much without breaking And
2) Linux , desktop “User-Friendly” distributions which will gladly update both themselves and software and most likely will not break anything much.

Of course, there is a reasonable indignation regarding Linux : and if I don’t want to update the software, I just want to make sure that the system has fewer security holes and the kernel is better (read " I want it as in Windows "), then you need two moves for actions:
1) when updating, leave only necessary packages
2) leave only security and core repositories in the repository lists.

So, Conclusion

From the point of view of stability, the two systems are the same : everything will either get better or stay as it was. The only thing that distinguishes Linux is that by default it offers a centralized update of all software. But the way to update programs in Windows clearly has its fans. In general, the last is on “taste and color”, and I have already given the answer to the question put to me in the dispute.