Re: Perhaps money will talk louder:
Any OS expected to be used by the average man in the street should not have maintenance that includes
...wait for several months after the vendor has released patches for other versions.
It has been a very very very very long time since I've compiled something on Linux for the machine itself. I've not had to compile drivers for Linux that I can recall, and I know I've never had to compile anything for the kernel - did look at it once but decided after a couple of minutes "way to much work, it 'just works' as it is". Most Linux users I know personally (mainly older and tech-illiterate) don't even know what a compiler is. Some don't even know what Linux is, though they use it for their day to day life.
If you have an edge case, or something unsupported, or the support isn't as quick as you'd like (ie it takes a few hours (yes hours, not weeks or months as in MS's case!) for the fix to appear in the repository BUT YOU MUST HAVE IT NOW!) then you can download and compile the patch. If you want. With Linux you have that option.
With MS, you're at the mercy of Microsoft and if they want to publish details of the exploit and leave your system unprotected, you're screwed because you cannot fix it yourself.
With Linux, if your system is unprotected, you can still look at what was changed in the source and fix it yourself/ask a mate to fix it/shove some money at someone and ask them to fix it.
So what's your critism? Being able to fix things that need fixing when the vendor says "I don't give a shit about you!" is bad?