IMO, the only good way is "if it works, don't fix it", which means, no updates. People are seriously overhyping updates.
I stopped updating all the stuff - OSes, smart locks, android apps, TVs, BP monitors - I honestly had multiple update problems on ALL mentioned devices, multiple times. I only update the thing when I have an actual problem and there is changelog stating that the bug is fixed, or when I want a new feature. You can handle security in other ways in almost all the cases.
I think this IT update burden has gotten out of hand - I don't recall any other domain is like that - my car, my house, my bicycle, my glasses DO NOT UPDATE and its glorious - apart from physical damage, they work the same as yesterday.
The amount of registry hacks and debloat scripts and messed up updates I've had to endure on Windows makes my Linux experience seem very breezy by comparison to be perfectly honest with you.
The main issue I have with my own reasoning here is that about 20 years ago when I was getting into Linux: it was hard; and thus I learned a lot. Something that is a literal 2 second fix for me might take someone else 2 days or not be solvable. I can't really understand how hard others have it.
But: my mum ran Linux mint for the last 8 years without issue. So maybe it really is a skill issue. This woman is not tech literate like I am. So, there's that.
Your own usage of Linux is irrelevant to the mainstream user. If you use anything for 20 years, you will probably be good with it if you care at least a bit. Most people don't care, it is a mean to an end. Hell, I am in IT since kindergarten and I don't care sometimes, it happens now and then that I just want some stuff to work without any issues.
Linux is harder than Windows. It can't be anything else, as it is not originally made for mainstream user, but for engineers and geeks. We came a long way since inception though and today many distros offer decent OS for mainstream user.
Because if its power users; having command of the whole operating system is just objectively better. Nothing hidden or forbidden and no oddities and quirks that are non-detiministic, indeterministic and actively prohibit debugging.
If its ease of use: then the easiest laptop operating system to maintain is… Linux (in the form of a chromebook).
That said, I really haven’t helped my mum with her laptop- I actually thought she didn’t use it because she didn’t ask me any support questions but it turned out that it “just worked” and she clicked the update pop-up once in a while like I asked her to.
> Linux is harder than Windows. It can't be anything else, as it is not originally made for mainstream user
This sounds like cope. Accessibility can be better on Windows for this reason… people being paid to drudge through an accessibility checklist- but the reality is not this. CommodoreOS was also built for humans and its harder to use than OpenBSD (which makes no apologies to non-power users). Your entire thesis here is bunk- there’s just countless examples of people thinking they know best for users but actively harming them instead (by hiding information or misleading them intentionally).