SOoooooo, linux doesn't need reboots?Not for anything unrelated to the kernel or its modules.
Sooooooo, compiling a new kernel doesn't require a reboot??No, silly, it's booting the new kernel that requires the reboot. Which can be easily scheduled at a future time by the sysadmin with 'at' or 'reboot' commands.
Alllllll those errata pages for linux are there for giggles, since it has no flaws???????"No flaws"? You must be hallucinating or trying to burn a straw man, since there was no such claim made.
Point is, Linux does have flaws, and does need rebooting for MAJOR fixes, such as a kernel flaw, as Windows does.Nobody is contesting that Linux needs to be rebooted to change over to a fixed kernel. The point of dispute is that Windows must be rebooted for many fixes which have nothing to do with the kernel. This is an inconvenience at best, and occasionally a show-stopper.
Think of linux users as a gym full of pro boxers. Think of MS user as a gym full of weight watchers (bloatware jab at MS intended).I'm not sure if that analogy fits. There are quite a number of experienced and inexperienced users on both sides.
So if the users don't want to be 'mugged', they need to RTFM and stop blaming the OS for THIER mistakes.THEIR mistakes do not always include something preventable by preemptive action. Many security bulletins are generated from a working exploit already in the wild. That would imply that at least one user has had his machine compromised through no fault of his own.