You guys may not have the balls to say that "linux is better", but I certainly do. There are thousands of quantitative reasons, which can be very easily argued among computer science literate individuals of why linux and the linux kernel is _FAR_ superior to windows. This isn't just something computer scientists argue that means nothing to the end user, it just means that the regular computer user simply does not understand these concepts, and if they did they would probably just revolt with senseless nonsense like "so, that's not important", when if properly adopted it would be very important.
Here are a few reasons why linux is far superior to windows in design. First and foremost, linux has found what is wrong with windows and fixed it. This is something linux can do because users of linux are phenomenal at fast adaptation of changes in standards. Windows users, however, are phenomenal at slow-to-no adaptation of new standards. If a change in windows will negatively affect a business, it will not happen in windows. Linux, however, is different. This is just a concept, lets get to tooth and nail differences that make one superior.
Preemptive multitasking. Basically means linux can not crash unless the kernel crashes. Very important for many reasons. How many times you had to reboot your computer because of a hung app? Even though it's gotten better, windows still yet does not use preemptive multitasking. Windows relies on processes being 'polite', and giving the processor to each other when needed, while the linux kernel gives a process a set time for holding the processor before the kernel retrieves the processor back. No matter the 'opinion' of the process, it can not hold the processor longer than it has been allotted.
Everything is a program. Meaning, Linux can be less than 2MB in size for a fully functional Linux operating system. Windows can't do this, not even its compact edition.
Portability. Linux can be ran, easily and natively, on basically every CPU architecture made. It can run on a powerpc mac, it can run on x86 windows processor, a RISC chip in mobile devices, the list goes on. This is something that windows and mac both can definitely not say. Yea, it can be ported, but this takes a long tedious time. The linux kernel just needs recompiling with the drivers for the device loaded. This calls for rapid deployment on a very wide range of new devices.
Linux can be as big or as little as necessary (see portability), meaning it can pretty much run on any computer ever made, or any embedded device, for that matter. One look at Windows Vista requirements, and it becomes obvious to you very quickly that Vista was not designed with older PC's in mind. Windows XP, for that matter, has quite steep system requirements when compared to its predecessor Win98. I know you're going to say windows has gotten better, and hardware has too, making it make sense to require more resources.... save it, I'm not an idiot, I know this. What you fail to realize though is that basically this means older PC's can't run anything but windows 98, which is no longer supported officially by microsoft meaning that viruses and so on run rampid. Basically this means there is no way in a 'windows-user' mind to be able to use an old PC such as that. Suddenly, this means that the computer is useless and must be thrown out. What was that about saving the environment you were just on about? Do you realize just how many toxins are in PC's? Especially older ones.
There are many other reasons, but I'm too lazy to go on and I need to get some things done before the sun goes down. My primary point in this whole thing is that Linux *IS* better, in many ways than windows. As far as design, it's basically like comparing a regular built house to a hurricane resistant built home on the coast of Miami. Yea, one can argue (lol) that the regular house is "better", since "better" is a relative term, but from an engineering standpoint there is absolutely positively no comparison.
The primary reasons Windows excels beyond Linux so well is because it is made with commercialism as its number 1 concern. Linux, however, is not. Therefore, it may never be commercially fit (unless that very thing changes). Linux has too many arguments, and has a problem with coordination and no "feature freezes" of the linux operating system as a whole. If you simply say you are using linux, this means nothing at all as Linux is not unified. If you say "I'm using windows XP", however, that really means something because windows XP is a very strongly unified body of code. This is the simple and pure advantage windows has on linux, and its so strong that while linux may get bigger, I seriously doubt it will ever take over unless there is commercialism as a primary driving means. Commercialism prioritizes things that linux not only does not care about, but outright refutes, such as everyone using one way to do something. It only takes 1 linux user thinking there is a better way and making that 'better way' to create 2 ways to do something, meaning after you are doing something that requires a program standing on the shoulders of 20 apps, you have something to the effect of 20^2 different software configurations to get to that point, and any number of things could be going wrong. This essentially makes it so that people are damn near impossible to figure out exactly what the problem is with their linux system and how to fix it the best way. This is difficult even in the extremely unified windows and many times results in a system restore/reformat. Linux just makes it exponentially harder due to its lack of unification.
It's because of these reasons that Linux is not well adapted, and it's because of that reason that commercial developers care very little about their software running on Linux. This puts Linux at a double fatal downfall. Few things are designed for it, hardware or software, and Linux does not care for commercialism currently meaning it will never grow to become a commercial product.