I hear you, but your claim that Windows Update is "frustrating and buggy" just doesn't mesh with my experience, so it's hard to relate to your concern. I don't think I've ever noticed Windows update running, except for the once-a-month or so times I've come back to my computer and it's been restarted. Hardly "buggy" or "frustrating".
Admittedly I don't think all Microsoft updates that get pushed out are security patches, but there are a lot of configuration options that give me control of how and when updates get applied. I find it hard to understand what the situation is that these controls aren't enough to work around any potential "critical" timeframe I might have.
Besides, for important stuff that must be up all the time, everyone knows by now that *nix is the way to go, right? This is not anywhere remotely new. Running Windows is implicitly trading off 100% availability for... whatever else Windows offers (gaming compatibility, for me).
My frustration with a personal PC is just turning one on the morning after doing updates and having to wait an hour before I could go back to work.
For silly reasons, though, I've had to update a lot of OEM Windows Home installations to new. Something like Ubuntu would have been better if starting from scratch but there was a lot of work to move the codebase to that once Windows stopped being something you could trust to turn on when you wanted it to turn on and turn off when you wanted it to turn off.
Anyway, this led to days of non-deterministic updating where sometimes it would fail to find the new updates until after I left, sometimes it would fail to install an update, and sometimes it would boot-loop. But always it would take longer than installing a new Linux distribution from scratch.
Now this is all anecdotal but even an installation-and-update cycle that goes well takes too long - seemingly because Windows has now mixed the worst DRM implications of SaaS and proprietary SaaP for most of its genuine customers. When I see people talking about how updates can be made to work as one would expect them to work with just a few steps (which seem to change following every major release), I'm reminded of playing with shakier Linux and FreeBSD desktop distributions as a teen. Now Ubuntu is the OS that 'just works'.
My frustration about this largely comes from any complaints about the implementation being lumped in the 'ignore' bin with the Luddites who don't care about the security at all. My very proprietary Chromebook updates painlessly.
I get all that, but your last line resonates most with me.
> My very proprietary Chromebook updates painlessly.
This is how my experience is with Windows. It's painless. Zero issues. It operates exactly as I expect, and I have no problems.
Besides, running Linux distros came with the veritable cavalcade of revolving "Why won't this basic thing work?" -> "Maybe this forum post from 3 years ago will help" -> "Okay now my mouse won't move." -> "Better reinstall the OS to get things working again" -> "Why won't this basic thing work?" and so on. Ubuntu is probably, to me, the experience you feel you're having with Windows.
Linux desktops feel like a hobby unto themselves, which may be fine for some, but is not what interests me.
Admittedly I don't think all Microsoft updates that get pushed out are security patches, but there are a lot of configuration options that give me control of how and when updates get applied. I find it hard to understand what the situation is that these controls aren't enough to work around any potential "critical" timeframe I might have.
Besides, for important stuff that must be up all the time, everyone knows by now that *nix is the way to go, right? This is not anywhere remotely new. Running Windows is implicitly trading off 100% availability for... whatever else Windows offers (gaming compatibility, for me).