You in 1857: "The court clearly said Dred Scott isn't a person, so why are you still talking about his 'human rights'? Accept the verdict and quit persecuting those slaveowners!"
A criminal trial is a fallible process, even to the limited extent that its purpose is to actually discern the truth. This should be beyond obvious, but that goes double when a trial pits authoritarian systems of social control against the rights of historically disadvantaged and abused groups, including minorities, juveniles and alleged "delinquents". No one here, except perhaps you, is claiming that they "just know!" anything about this case. There is no reason free people cannot review the evidence and reach our own conclusions, regardless of what actions an imperfect and often biased judicial system took.
But but but......Apple and KDE and GNOME and Google don't have to bundle other browsers so the EU sucks and just wants to hurt a successful MERKIN company!!!!!
I imagine it'd be pretty difficult to build a successful merkin company in this economy.
If the 90/10 market share is true, then those systems should have 10% of the virus market by that logic.
That's not entirely true. The relatively high fixed costs of learning an OS's security model and writing a new virus to take advantage of that, compared to the relatively small cost of tweaking existing viruses written to exploit an OS you already understand well suggests malware authors would stick with Windows even as Linux desktop share grows to avoid duplication of costs and enjoy the advantages of economies of scale.
So "there's no viruses because it's not popular" is false, but virus targeting will not strictly follow market share for a variety of economic reasons, until Linux share passes a tipping point where the value that can be extracted from untapped targets exceeds the startup costs of writing viruses for a new security paradigm.