It would be great if Linux had some automatic checkpoints so you can revert to a working system after an update. So many times updates leave a broken system and re-install Ubuntu from scratch is quicker than fixing the problem.
Not that I would really have turned any Linux significantly non-functional by updating during the last 15 years. But it's all software, so everything can happen one day...
And here's the crux of it, isn't it? Unless it's accessible and enabled by default, it might as well not exist from the PoV of the end user.
Windows' restore points happen automatically before updates or driver updates. Then you're prompted automatically to restore if Windows fails to boot after an update.
As usual Linux has all the pieces but no desire to create UX to go with it. Which is a shame because ZFS with automatic snapshotting daily or before major events combined with a simple UI that can run in the preboot environment would be a game changer and make Windows look like a toy.
For what it's worth, at one point Ubuntu supported installing on ZFS through its regular installer and installed the boot environment thingy, with a snapshot before every update. I have one such machine which is now running 23.04 and that still works. I've never had to use in practice, though.
The boot UI for most modern UEFI-Firmwares is really primitive and they usually don't come with EFI shells.
Linux mint has timeshift.
The now defunct Project Trident installer set up a zfs root with zfsbootmenu and an update script that automatically sets up a boot environment you can revert and boot from with the built in feature of zfsbootmenu.
Both let you achieve your goal. You can set up either system even if they aren't built in.
Insofar as timeshift consider the review source, circumstances, and nature of complaints. Users who don't have difficulties rarely post anything and yet many reviews are positive. Those that aren't seem to focus on people who didn't realize they could provide a secondary drive and just kept storing data until their OS drive filled up.
Mint leans heavily towards technically incompetent users and yet many people were able to use it successfully. Meeting every users needs no matter how incapable is probably a poor benchmark to define if somethings is "crap" or not even if those users problems are are a great guideline to a path forward to helping all users better.
For instance it might be better if timeshift only supported a fs with snapshots instead of rsync and required a secondary disk and warned of space issues long before the disk fills up but it seems quite possible to competently use it right now.
Mostly been using PopOS and Ubuntu-Budgie.