In vanilla format, windows and Ubuntu are about as secure as each other.
Ha ha ha ha! Not even close.
I'm sorry but not only is windows closed source but academic studies have demonstrated that the linux kernel has far few bugs per line of code than Windows. Most security holes are the result of bugs.
The Red October malware network that went un-discovered for years. Was it open source or closed source vulnerabilities it exploited?
And this is exactly why they are both as secure as each other! Having more faith in something, because some academic told you its ok, is really bad practice!
All the statements you made are discussing non technical issues. Licencing doesn't make something more secure, and its not the kernel we are discussing, but the whole package, including the apps that run on it.
As an example, when you look for expolits in Linux, you check out things like Samba local root exploits, OpenSSH, SETI@home, ProFTPD, Apache etc for flaws to get in, you don't tend to check out the Linux kernel, even though that also has flaws.
When you look for Windows exploits, you would look for the same type of things, but its all under the banner of Windows, and so the myth of Windows being more insecure continues - even though it was only really true in the late 90s - remember the Netbios file share exploit?
Any computer is secure if the user is proactive in maintaining security, and not clicking on stuff they don't fully trust!
