First of all it is unadvisable to use such a language and say: "Oooh, you are just spreding lies, you don't know anything"...

Secondly, haven seen all the Windows that existed and seen at most what they can, similar seeing most of the things that Dos can do, and seeing 2 versions of linux (Last one was RedHat Linux 9) and on very various hardware, you shouldn't judge so easly and as usually....

Back to the point...
1)Why is Linux so good, if he must partition a drive in 3 section (boot (100Mb), Work (rest of), Swap (about 300Mb)??? It's no use and no meaning to split that much the drive, and make it so that if you don't own a SCSI, you will loose performance when the HDD is seeking to reacha file on each partition...

2) Linux is a closed  system in a way. Why would someone be denied access to certain directories and files on the partition, no matter what rights you give yourself, they remain always under system control?

3)Linux is more efficient in using RAM than Windows, but not by much... Any option to control how much memory space you use for caching (buffering) files from/to your HDD? Also, Linux is using around 20 Mb for some Netscape pages (slightly as an Windows XP IE6 page open), Explorer windows (called Navigator) which use around 7Mb per window...

4)Playing media content under Linux, even with good drivers, is still under the usual quality that Windows outputs, this can be seen as not a Linux problem, but of hardware drivers releases. But if you have a conflict on Linux, it is way harder to solve than on Win (9x).

5)Programs designed for Linux are not so amazingly different in fact. Running a game like "Linux Tux" shows a good deal of inneficiently use, since it can't run properly on a K6-2 at 450 Mhz or on a P2 with a Banshee or a Savage4. And the game is really no big deal, since even on a Radeon 9000, it's not a big difference (quality +10%) or a strong increase in speed (at most 20%). On a seriously well design, the differences should be much bigger, since runing a GTA3 on a Banshee and on a Radeon 9000 is totally different in terms of speed (300% more fps).

6)Linux still is not out of the era: "it's a good system if you don't know or bother too much, and all the apps are installed by someone else.". But trying to make some space free is not as easy as in Win, and trying to understand where really are your files placed is even harder (if you don't have them in My Documents or in the Start menu)...

7)Linux is not bug free. I remember seeing an error appear with no explanation at all. And in what program, guess? Nautilus, the Explorer counterpart, when there were also running Netscape pages.

8)Linux failed constantly on 2 fields:
a)Didn't prove in true numbers that their File System is faster than FAT16, not counting the problem of large file transfers to make problems even worse...
b)Didn't proove that is efficient in using RAM, since 64Mb or RAM can get rather quickly filled up, whenever on a Win98 it would take a little longer.

9)As on Windows, the apps don't recover fully the resources they claimed when they started, nor the memory fragmentation and allocation problems (slack generated due to the memory blocks minimum size, wasting memory when the allocation unit is not filled up, but is taken by the OS as a block used...).

10)Linux failed to prove better in how much RAM an app is using. Just as Windows 9x and upper, you will need about 4MB for each app to run it (no one time load of each .dll module in RAM and then share it as Win 3x did), and this proves that the example was taken from MS os'es, and still this tehnique is known to be limited in efficiency, since the .dll modules themselves rely on other modules. When one cracks down, it takes 50% or nearly (depends on luck and app), with it, and you could press "reset" if you are really unlucky... On the other size, DOS or Win 3x apps, even if not amazing in looks, didn't take all the system with them, even when a "General protection fault occured", and survived without freezing, even to a "protected mode failure", not to mention DOS, in which I never see a PC freeze or give random errors as in other OS'es. More, apps that are 64, 128Kb in size (DOS and Win3x) are a thing of past, now you have ones that are 512Kb-5Mb, ant they load trully 10 times more...

Try to reflect a bit at this aspects that shows the "not so bright" part of Linux.

To say a good thing, yes, Linux is safer in networking, file sharing and security than MS, at least for now, and yes, it looks just as good or even better than Win, and it has way more and greater screensavers (other true values are waited to fill the list, maybe in the future)...