The article fails to demonstrate why Linux is less secure than Windows.
- not managing user permissions per least permissions principle
- not restricting access to bashrc
- not using Wayland opportunistically for a key app, e.g. emacs
- not LVM encrypting during the initial install
- not enabling memory and CPU protections in kernel (Ubuntu, Fedora, etc get most of this right ootb)
There are more examples, and I'm not a security professional, but it's enough to give the flavour of the kinds of problems in defensive Linux security.
I've seen so many people relying on the OS and thinking themselves as power users just by using it with default settings. I think it's a mistake, hence my comparison.
Attacking a secured Windows system is not at everybody's reach. Doesn't mean it can't be done, but it's something I don't like to read in security news, like finding and exploiting 0days will be easy for attackers.
It's not and can take some time. There's even a huge market for initial access. In contrast, exploiting a vulnerable Linux system (e.g., unpatched) is documented everywhere.
It's just that privesc and kernel exploits is possible under some conditions on Linux.
From my experience, this is literally par for the course - describe a mitigation without actually providing any useful advice whatsoever.