First, the problem is comparing two incomparable situations.
For Windows, patches are a sign of deeper problems. Microsoft hides (and bashers point too) flaws under the marketing impression that a bigger number of found flaws means a crappier product.
Also, Windows flaws tend to be of a more serious nature. All software get's updated but we're not talking about Notepad version 2900.1.5 updating to Notepad version 2900.1.6. We're talking about flaw XYZ found to allow remote code execution or flaw WXY found to cause blue screen crashes.
Now, that's not to account for the Patch Tuesday?s distribution schedule. Some complain because patch releases are withheld for once a month but if a patch is critical enough then MS releases it and a regulated schedule serves there corporate customers; no one here is mistaking the home user for MS primary target customer.
For Linux distros (*nix OSS in general), patches are a sign of an active project community. FOSS celebrates patches as an increase in program evolution. They include new features, minor bug fixes, critical flaw and exploit patches and usually more of the earlier rather than later
Too keep in rhythm, Linux flaws tend to be a less severe issue. The design of the OS goes a long way to what vulnerability is and how much damage it can actually do. You may be able to get into a terminal but your still stuck with a user?s security level. In the majority of cases, your getting a later version of a program from it?s ongoing development process.
Here, Linux releases updates as soon as they are available. If it?s a flaw, it?s usually out as soon after discovery as possible depending on how active the respective project is. If your sticking to one distribution, there is a little lag while the Distro maintainer vett?s and includes the update into there repository. This s still working to release asap instead of working to release at next future update day.
So, a great deal of the conflict and gripe comes from two separate views of Patches trying to compare (usually denigrate) the other camp?s pet OS. In the MS/Apple world, patches are somehow a bad thing. People quickly throw around numbers of patches without the details of what the patch fixes; software update, minor bug flaw, major exploit flaw. In the FOSS world, patches are celebrated as neat new solutions to another problem some self motivated developer jumped on. The two are very different beasts and can not actually be compared directly on numbers of patches released on what time schedule.
Another great deal of conflict comes from the all mighty dollar. One pays an arm and a leg (or ?first taste? fee depending on emerging market) for the privilege of renting Windows or osX. When money is involved, suddenly things get blown out of proportion.
For Windows, one pays out money. The base OS is so much, the office suite so much more, virus scanning and other applications all add to the cost. Windows Updates only provide patches for the base OS and office suites though. That?s not to slam proprietary software; it?s simply that you?ll pay for each additional function you want to include. On the FOSS side, you may pay money for software that has proven itself worth the investment (it?s not for pay software that most OSS people dislike, its crappy quality software for pay).
The differences are not just financial, MS updates have a habit of breaking older versions of data file formats and such. I may not want to grade from Media Player 10 to the more end user restrictive Media Player 11 and if I do, will it still support all my efforts to manage media win Media Player 10? The updates are viewed as a subtle way of moving the end user forward into the next version of MS lock-in. (They created a DRM scheme then made the very next version of there media player incompatible in favor of the new flavor of DRM it included.. hm..). FOSS on the other hand, gives you updates for everything you have installed without guiding your decisions to select a forked project (if you consider WM old DRM forked too WM new DRM) and when you do get an update, you now it?s going to continue working with your existing data files and config.
In this regard, it?s still comparing to different creatures on unfair ground. With MS, you pay for each additional function set and while updates should be forthcoming, the seriousness of MS flaws tend to be much higher than such a license fee warrants. You get only the updates for MS personal products leaving you searching for all your third party software updates. FOSS updates, covering everything, install through the distribution package manager and provide the latest version of a program while rarely breaking your existing install.
Perhaps it comes down to people choosing to put far more importance on the number of patches without looking at the severity of a patch and not minding easily fetched updates for the complete system when they don?t feel like it?s corralling them into a future major version marketing campaign. Really, you?d need to look at each individual?s reasons for there opinion and judge weather it?s the same old claims based on valid reasons or the same old claims because that?s the rhetoric this week.
My personal feeling is that updates are good for any OS. If I see few updates or one large lump then I start watching for other signs of ongoing developer activity. If I see regular and frequent updates then I know the software is still evolving and improving. As for the severity of updates, I think some of the wholes left open in Windows are very questionable given there operating budget. The other issue is Microsoft and Apple?s habbit of keeping quiet about updates instead of showing good faith through a more open approach to software flaws. Neither wants to look weak in the eyes customers who don?t understand patch counts rather than look proactive in the eyes of the customer by saying ?this flaw was found and we?re busting our hump to get it fixed?. (In sort, Windows time to patch measured in days and months versus FOSS time to patch measured in hours in some cases.)
