2. Windows still doesn't have proper package management. Which leads to...
3. With Windows every app has its own update process that takes up resources and nag the user.
No doubt. It's a serious issue. However, can you imagine hell that everyone would raise if Microsoft wanted to offer such a service? They catch flak for almost everything they do.
Doesn't stop Windows from sucking in this regard, tho. What you're saying is that it may be too difficult a problem for Microsoft to solve.
4. Malware and adware is thick on Windows.
Windows 7 has made tremendous strides forward when it comes to security. I'm no Microsoft apologist, but when they try to improve things three things bite them in the ass: (a) backwards compatibility (aka "my Windows 95 program can't do X! Why doesn't it work, stupid Microsoft!"); (b) users who insist on running with elevated privileges. (c) complaints when good stuff gets implemented (such as PatchGuard, which antivirus vendors went crazy about).
Ditto.
5. Windows doesn't come bundled with common tools I use, such as a compiler, OpenSSH, productivity suite, etc.
And cars don't come bundled with gasoline. And houses don't come bundled with furniture. And groceries don't come bundled with chefs.
You are seriously complaining because Windows doesn't come bundled with stuff? And wasn't bundling stuff what got Microsoft into trouble before?
I agree with OP. I want a compiler, OpenSSH, productivity suite, etc., built in. I don't want to have to piss around installing and maintaining them. Call me greedy, but I want it all. Your argument is that it is too much to ask - that Microsoft would find it difficult to bundle them.
9. Windows lacks containers/jails.
"The esoteric feature that I want is missing. It serves no practical purpose and isn't needed in the product's target market, but I want it. And it's not there. Why is it not there!?!?"
Again, I agree with OP: containers & jails are very useful for a variety of practical reasons. When you have a powerful tool like that available, you tend to find uses for it. You, on the other hand, have no use for them.
10. Windows lacks a good, advanced file system like ZFS.
NTFS is a pretty decent filesystem. It doesn't have flashy features and it's not hip, but it gets the job done, it's reliable and you know what... those are the two primary considerations for a filesystem. At least for most people.
So you accept the premise that NTFS is inferior. But you don't mind.
12. I can't hack on the Windows source code.
Don't take this personally, but your programming skills almost certainly make that a good thing.
Ouch.
And let's be realistic - for the overwhelming majority of computer users, the computer is an appliance. They don't need or want to know how it works. They just want it to work. So you can imagine how they feel about "hacking source code."
Once again, I agree with OP. I very often find it invaluable to have access to source code, for anything I'm interfacing with. Once again, Microsoft would find it difficult to offer what Linux does on this point.
Overall, my sense is that what you're saying is, "Microsoft doesn't match up with Linux in a number of ways. But because it would be difficult for Microsoft to match up with Linux, it's OK."
What I don't get is, why do you care whether it's difficult for Microsoft or not? Why not simply use the best tool available for your purposes?