That I agree. It's the price one has to pay for having a secure system. If Linux is to be as easy as Windows, Microsoft will be out of business in no time :). It has every other advantage - price, security, speed, stability, openness. Compatibility won't be an issue if people start trying it en mass. Software makers will have to adapt to that.
But you have paid for this extra security over a Windows system with user friendliness. Just for a second, be my mom. Go to your local library, grab a 7-year-old WeightWatchers CD with a leaflet read so often you are afraid it will turn to dust if you touch it, take the CD, insert it into your drive and have it running in 5 minutes without any knowledge about your computer, sudo, a root password or even the fact that just because it's a "computer CD", it doesn't have to work on every computer/OS.
Yes, the fact that autorun is enabled because she wouldn't know how to start the executable on the CD otherwise and the fact that she is running as administrator because I won't give a three-hour-lecture about running a system with different users are tearing a security hole in the system that's the size of a small moon. But that's the price people pay.
Of course, but it's a practical thing. It is like that because it wasn't until recently (vista) that Microsoft promoted the idea of running as a limited user.
That's true. But don't blame the OS. The operating system itself is safe. Applications are crappy. And your desire to run them is greater than your desire for security. Your email client is running arbitrary code and requires admin priviledges ? Well, throw it in the bin and get a better mail client. But people don't want that. Because running OEx is so simple right ?
Windows (NT upwards) wasn't a bad operating system. It was pretty secure. If you used it. If you abused it, you'd experience the same problems you'd have with a *nix system having a totally clueless user running as root all time installing buggy software.