[pvg]

Integrated updates are built into both Windows and OS X. Have been for a long time. Both of these rather popular consumer OS's surely have their problems. But the idea that a Linux desktop is somehow more user-friendly or accessible because it has 'package management' or an awesome terminal is absurd. I somewhat suspect that sort of dreadful idea is part of the reason why there is no competitive Linux-based consumer OS, to date.

[flatulent1]

The updates found in Ubuntu go well beyond what's seen with OS X and Windows. A huge number of apps get updates as well. Also, adding software is much easier. It's more like having a built-in software store. Vast numbers of free apps can be browsed and installed without even needing to use the web browser. Having the software available in a repository is much safer than looking around the web. It's not uncommon for Windows users to be tricked into installing things that do more harm than good. As with the App store for the iPhone, a central distribution tested repository reduces the likelihood of problems.

I wouldn't make sweeping claims about Ubuntu based on a couple of characteristics but since you used the word "accessible" I'll go as far as to say that it certainly applies to Ubuntu apps and updates. The free software is enough to meet the needs of many (it goes way beyond what Windows comes with), and the freedom from the need of AV software help make things faster than Windows.

I love OS X, but also enjoy Ubuntu and have found that installing it has worked well when dealing with Windows friends hit with malware. Some keep Windows around to dual boot into for a few games, but all have been quite happy with all net time and most everything else being in Ubuntu. Unlike OS X, Ubuntu comes with a pretty good assortment of games. That's one of the reasons I often install it even on Macs (in VirtualBox which is a free VM).

There's very little to configure and it certainly has no grief comparable to trying to strip the crapware out of many vendors default Windows installs.

Consumers buying generic PCs certainly should pressure their vendors to offer machines without Windows (and without charging them for it). And if they do want Windows, it shouldn't be loaded with crapware. On many machines that more than doubles the boot time.

There are plenty of fast-enough PCs that end up in recycle bins and at thrift stores because of malware. Instead of a new machine, many could do quite well with one of those running Ubuntu. It's free. Don't be shy, try it.

[dman]

How many non apple updates have you seen in the apple update center ? How many non microsoft updates have you seen in the microsoft update center ?

[Samuel_Michon]

As of Mac OS X Snow Leopard, installation and updating of printer drivers get handled by Apple's Software Update.

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/09/02/09/apples_snow_le...

Ofcourse, those drivers are still curated by Apple. Back in 2004, Apple flirted with the idea of opening up Software Update for third parties, but has since decided against it.

"The computer company fears that third party developers could accidently release buggy or infected software updates, which would ultimately effect the Mac OS X operating system, causing customers to fault Apple."

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/04/07/13/apple_nixes_th...

[dman]

Btw thanks for including links! Maybe the feature could be added as an opt-in for the user. This is what ubuntu does - https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Repositories/Ubuntu#Adding... , works great. Also the fact that random regular company can actually host their own apt repo and ask their users to add it to their apt configuration and then receive updates via the System Updater is kind of neat. There are several companies which do this - cloudera being among one of them, virtualbox being another.

[joubert]

Most Mac apps do auto updating, not via Apple's infrastructure mind you, but at least in a much nicer way than Windows apps.