Windows loses big time in this regard.

Windows security issues tend to be very critical while security issues with 0*BSD, Linux, Mac, Solaris and other Unices tend to be less critical.

Gee, now that's a convincing set of arguments to conclude on. Windows security "tends" to be critical, Windows security "tends" to be remotely exploitable, so lets conclude it's more insecure. Solid and impressive.

As for spreading lies, I didn't. It's a problem with the Solaris 10 telnet daemon. Yes, it has to be enabled/opened to use but this is no different to any other service based vulnerability. Having a service in a disabled state is a temporary workaround, not a fix. The vulnerability still exists and all it takes to expose a system is some unknowing person to enable it for some tunnel vision reason without knowing the greater implications.

Add to that, I think many would agree that many sysadmins enable it to make fault finding easier thinking, "it's just telnet" or purely because they don't know better.

To justify that a vulnerability is somehow "OK" or "invalid" just because you can disable the problematic service is ridiculous and certainly raises questions over one's risk assessment competence.

Yes, Windows Server 2003 certainly has proven to be very insecure.

Add to the mix the 'supporting the underdog' ethos that seems to be in the IT world,

That depends on the exact definition of "risk". I'd expect the risk to be calculated on basis of access to the system by this flaw combined with how easy it is to exploit. The risk of somebody exploiting it doesn't mean much to me since the risk of exploiting it is a result for the easyness of exploiting it and the damage one can do with that vulnerability.

The marketshare doesn't mean anything when you get past the 1% (or 2%) line. At that stage the marketshare is big enough to warrant attacks. Take a look at Apache servers. They are constantly attacked but seldom surrenders. It is not lack of attacks that make Apache reasonably safe. It is the code quality (and the configuration). The many Windows flaws are not a result of market share but poor codequality and stupid defaults.

This is moot now, because most crackers are not in it anymore for the ideology but mostly for the money. Most crackers are working for companies making money on spam as well as spyware and malware.