I won't debate the merits of Windows or Linux. All I wonder is how a company with a proprietary OS, which is rife with security problems (as has been evidenced by the plethora of "updates") can claim another OS has no security? That's the pot calling the penguin black, eh?
Seriously, I think the Linux development model is far superior to anything Microsoft could ever put together, simply because Microsoft doesn't allow tens, if not hundreds of thousands of people pour over their code for vulnerabilities. When you have 10,000 open source developers all working to improve every aspect of an OS for the love of doing it, you receive far superior results than you would from a single team of, say, 20 programmers who are paid to slave over it, again, as is evidenced by the many problems Microsoft has.
Oh, and if you think Linux or the GPL aren't viable, I suggest you tell the people at http://www.groklaw.net why you think so. That would be fun. (Where's the lost in space robot smiley??)
Not to mention, of course, that Linux is free (as in speech , not as in beer ) and can be modified at whim...
If you couldn't tell, I'm not a Microsoft fan...
Okay! Your turn to slam me!