continued from above
In the times of Windows 95/98, the general statement, Linux is more secure was pretty much true.
Nowadays, the situation is a bit different: General statements as the one above or the title of the article don’t make any sense without looking at different use cases and specific aspects of IT-security, namely privacy.
As @kc1di already pointed out, 90% of IT-security is in front of the computer, not inside.
As a general rule, we can still say that the Open Source approach to software is far better at preventing certain kinds of threats, namely introduction of backdoors by governments and institutions, than the security by obscurity approach of closed source systems.
Still, the article puts the finger in an open wound: Security by design is an approach which is wildly despised by the old guard of kernel developers around Linus Torvalds. It is my personal opinion that this is an approach which cannot be upheld much longer. The biggest part of world’s critical IT-infrastructure is currently running on Linux and many design choices made in the early days, when the goal was to provide the general public with a truly free alternative to the commercial UNIX implementations, are now, decades later, becoming liabilities.
When it comes to set up a corporate IT-infrastructure, Linux would still be the system of my choice, but I would make very sure to have a well-paid and capable sysadmin with plenty of time and resources.
On the other hand, I think it is the moment to seriously re-examine the paradigms of the Linux kernel development, even if it means saying farewell to the valiant heroes of the past.