How ironic that the one who complains most loudly about irrational zealots sounds more like one than those whom he criticizes.
I don't treat Linux as a religion. I do prefer the Free Software ideology, but that's not the point for most people: the point for most people is that Linux works better than Windows for their needs. Even if I didn't care about FOSS, Linux just plain works better in most ways.
You talk about bugs being ignored for years and years? Windows is like the poster child for that problem. With Linux, I can actually file a bug report that the actual developers can see and can actually get fixes--rather than having to wait for the next 3-5 year OS update, which might not even fix it.
The "many eyes" theory is primarily about security flaws in FOSS vs. proprietary software--it's not so much about bugs in general, though it can apply to some extent. And you'd have to be a truly irrational person (like APK) to honestly claim that Windows has a better security record than Linux.
I don't know nor care who Robert Pogson is, and I don't read LinuxInsider. No one said that the Linux community nor its press is free of annoying people--this is planet Earth. Maybe you should read LWN instead, where you can find people who are knowledgable, involved, and just as interested in pragmatism as in ideology.
You're basically just being hyperbolic and making gross generalizations. Linux WORKS great for me. I've been using it full-time as my desktop OS on at least four different systems for nearly a decade, and I've had far less trouble than I ever have had with Windows--and I used at least five different versions of Windows for over a decade before switching. I've never had to reinstall from scratch, and I've never had the system become unusable because of things Windows users suffer, such as viruses, malware, and registry corruption. On the other hand, when I used Windows, I would have to reinstall the OS from scratch every 6-18 months, and worry about any software I downloaded being infected, and deal with registry corruption and IRQL_NOT_LESS_THAN_OR_EQUAL BSODs which made the system unbootable (happened so much I remember the exact error!) on a fairly regular basis--while Linux on the same system had no such issues.
No system is perfect, and that includes Linux, the kernel, and any Linux distro you choose. If you expected perfection, then you set yourself up for failure and disappointment--these are computers we're talking about! (Sounds to me like you should have used Debian Stable or an Ubuntu LTS or even RHEL--those don't change for many years at a time, so breakage and regressions are hardly issues.)
To me, Linux is fundamentally about freedom and practicality. I exercise my freedom to choose by choosing to not be subject to Microsoft's whims and incompetence, and choosing to use software which cannot be taken away from me by EULAs or forced upgrades. I also have no viruses or malware to worry about (I'm not saying none exist for Linux--I'm saying it's not an issue in practice). I also have the freedom to configure my environment, UI, and UX to my heart's desire, and keep them the way I set them. You may exercise your freedom by choosing to deal with the problems Windows users' suffer. More power to you: that's what freedom is all about.
But quit with the non sequiturs and falling-sky anecdotes: Linux DOES work, and in many ways it works better than Windows ever has. Perhaps your bad experiences speak more of your incompetence than flaws in Linux, or perhaps you just got an unlucky combination of hardware and immature drivers (which are likely fixed by now, while Windows users are at the mercy of Microsoft and proprietary OEMs). The REALITY is that Linux works wonderfully for many people, usually with far fewer hassles than Windows.