[cptskippy]

And if Linux on the Desktop met his needs then he wouldn't be running Windows Desktop.

My point is that Windows Desktop is not Windows Server so if you're going to compare a Linux Server to Windows, then you should compare it to the equivalent Server variant.

[pessimizer]

> if you're going to compare a Linux Server to Windows

Lorkki's point was that this was not a thing that happened in the comment you replied to. Linux servers and desktops operate in the same way. The laptop I'm typing this on has 3 months uptime.

[cptskippy]

The original comment was about the regularity of updates and the complaint that Windows requires reboots more often. The op then compared his Linux Server's uptime to his Windows Desktop.

I simply said that wasn't a fair comparison because Windows Server doesn't require you to reboot.

You guys are arguing that Linux is Linux and I'm not disagreeing with you. Linux loads executable into memory before running them, Windows doesn't. So files on Linux can be updated/overwritten without reboot. That's a technical hurdle that can't easily be overcome.

The downside of that feature is that it's a hell of a lot easier to have a Linux system not come back up when it reboots because of drive failures or corruption. I've had that bite me in the ass a handful of times.

Regardless, my point was that if you need a system to have ridiculous uptime there is a version of Windows for that. I would argue that you absolutely do not need your laptop to be up for 3 months at a time.

[zikzak]

I run Windows because that's what my job requires. I also use Linux for personal stuff. This is hardly a unique situation.