I already posted about the futility of argueing over which OS is best just last week so I'll just link to that post:
http://freewebspace.net/forums/showpost.php?p=486412&postcount=20
As far as your claims go:
1 - linux is more reliable
A very broad generalization: a big portion of Linux machines are servers which tend to have a limited set of drivers and programs installed. If you don't continually install new, untested or unstable programs on any OS and are very rigid about what you'll allow on it and what you won't, there's no reason for it to crash.
People complaining about an OS crashing don't refer to the stability of a server, but their own desktop, secondly "Windows crashes a lot" is also a broad claim. Which Windows? 9x or NT/2k/XP? The former you're probably right, the latter crashing I'd attribute to either a hardware problem or the fact that you installed something wrong.
The number of pure Linux desktops is insignificant compared to the number of Windows desktops. If you do want to compare in a somewhat reliable way, divide the number of crashes per OS by the number of PCs running that OS full time and separate Windows 9x from NT based Windows.
Lastly, Windows targets an entire different market than Linux does. Everyone has to be able to work with Windows, regardless of their computer skills. I don't think it's entirely unfair to label the regular Linux user as being above average computer savy. So when comparing, either dump a few million people in front of a Linux PC and see how they cope or drop them from the comparison.
If Microsoft as much as fixes a spelling mistake in their documentation it becomes headline world news, whereas reports about Linux security flaws remain relatively obscure to the general public.
I'm also continually surprised at the hypocracy of what Microsoft is expected to do. All those people who rant without end about how insecure Windows is are the same people that scream in outrage when Microsoft tries to counter some of its mistakes because it inconveniences them.
Security and ease of use don't tend to go hand in hand. However, it's alright for Linux since it's Linux, but somehow Windows has to be secure
and not get in your way about it.
A lot of software vendors (even Microsoft at times) also don't make it any easier by things such as requiring you to be a member of the Administrators group to either install or run a program, leaving you at a higher risk. I personally don't ever log in to Windows under an administrative account, but I doubt most people would want to bother with right clicking and choosing "Run as" each time they want to install something as insignifcant as WinZip.
Another perfect example is Outlook Express' default behaviour of blocking potentially unsafe attachments. How hard is it to turn that off when you need it? Yet people complain, read their next email and open an attachment called "some celebrity nude.jpg.exe", ignore the warnings and then come back to complain that their computer was somehow infected and lay the blame squarely on Microsoft.
Say something like "IMO Microsoft made a mistake by not delivering the OS secured by default and then provide an easy and informative way of letting users unblock some things, while at the same time explaining what the potential risks could be" and I'll agree with you, but I'm really tired of seeing some of the "Linux crowd" spewing biased, unfounded and unarguemented claims.
And yes, I'm probably biased in favour of Windows and I do have my personal reasons for disliking Linux, but I think I can at least step above the "Windows rules because Linux just sucks!" level.
</rant>
