You, know, I am a happy Linux/Unix user going on 10 years now but the key is not the absence of patches. It is actually the frequency of small, incremental patches that keeps surprises away. No software is published without errors. It is not unusual that two or three small patches will come out every day for a few of the hundreds of components that make up Linux. With thousands of non-bureaucratic people, each with his/her own pride and interest in a free product they put their name on, it isn't surprising that the patches are frequent and the quality is high.
Because I am a former System Administrator I think these are neat and apply them almost every day. "Normal" people might apply them once a month or less frequently. Either way it is no big deal and simply a matter of clicking by the patches you want. I'm not sure I remember the last time I had a problem with one, although I think one did occur a couple of years ago.
Microsoft takes the wrong road, IMO, working for years on a single monolithic patch and then flooding the user community with it. The changes are too great and the real risks of incompatibility are high. It is considerably better to supply the frequent patches and allow the user community the choice when to install them.