I don't really think the MS update system offers much to copy.ostracized wrote:I claim that Mint would be well-to-do with added, well-placed restart prompts where necessary -- especially if the idea is to acclimate new Linux users who think everything is fine after "updating."InkKnife wrote: So you are claiming that practically every Windows update contains kernel updates?
And speaking of transitioning win7 users, can someone please address my previous concern about unattended upgrades? Is it even worth the effort to make the updater emulate the fully-automatic install that is provided in win7? Instead of checking a default every 2 hours, perhaps a monthly patch Tuesday scheme can be devised where the updater runs once per month and auto-updates everything on the "patch Tuesday list" (including the critical security kernel updates?) -- so long as the list of updates are sufficiently old (a month) and have been vetted by most of the "beta tester" community first. "Bad" updates get voted off the Tuesday list so as to avoid instability.
First off if one is using Mint you are looking at kernel update every two years so they don't really count as regular updates.
Secondly, updates in Linux are fast and require no reboot so they can be done at anytime without interrupting work-flow.
Thirdly, Linux is moving away from reboots entirely, why should Linux bother to emulate a system that is inferior to the native update system now and will only become more inferior in the future?
Lastly, Linux avoids data loss at all costs. Windows on automatic will happily reboot even if a document with unsaved changes is open, destroying the changes.
It comes down to design philosophy. In the Linux world it is considered a virtue to keep the user involved and informed about the update system, doing substantial updates silently is counter to that philosophy.