>>2
Linux is inherently more stable and more secure than Windows for several reasons. For one thing, unless someone has seriously screwed up the permissions, if a normal (read: non-root) user gets hacked or runs malware of some kind, they can't fuck up the rest of the system, only their own files.
As far as stability goes, it's more than possible to run Linux for years without having to reboot it once (even when you update the kernel, although you have to pay for that). Show me a Windows machine that can do that. That makes Linux more suitable for servers, which is why it's so common in that domain.
Linux also wins in terms of customisation and architecture (no registry, for example, and the file system hierarchy is much less retarded)
That being said, Windows isn't inherently bad - I'm using it right now. Like you said, they all exist for a reason (although, if all the games I play ran on Linux as well as they do on Windows, I would have literally no reason to use Windows at home).
Any OS that requires I recompile the kernel even *once* isn't going to be an OS that I recommend to Grandma.
I have literally never, in about 4 years of using Linux, been required to recompile the kernel. I've done it out of choice, but I've never been required to.
Referring to Linux as though it were a single monolithic OS is, of course, a bit of a misrepresentation.
No it isn't, Linux literally is a monolithic OS (more specifically, a monolithic kernel - strictly speaking it isn't an OS by itself, but RMS will tell you as much). I get that you don't mean monolithic in terms of kernel architecture, but you're misusing the term. At any rate, there isn't THAT much difference between most distros.
Like
>>3 said, your post is mostly bullshit.