What you say is just ridiculous because it hints at the idea that Linux doesn't have remote root exploits, only Windows does, which is just plain wrong.
You are reading a false dichotomy into my statement where there is none. I responded to your post because you were implying that the security risks of running Linux and Windows were equivalent. That is false because the number of remote root vulnerabilities, which are the most damaging vulnerabilities by any measure, are historically far more numerous in Windows than Linux. Furthermore, many of the remote root vulnerabilities that Linux systems have suffered are the fault of shoddy distributors who run services such as Apache as root unnecessarily, when the security architecture of Linux is specifically designed so that service daemons have no reason at all to run as root. Such stupidity turns what should be a 2-level exploit into a 1-level triviality. A reasonable person might blame those specific distributions for their flaws, instead of blaming the open source development model or Linux itself without providing evidence that either is why Linux systems get exploited.