Underestimated Linux security-the real facts

We seem to get used to the promotion of MS, especially the get the Facts series in the last two years, and think that Linux is not so secure. Theregister.com has an in-depth survey report above: (although old, still valid)
Http://www.theregister.com/2004/10/22/linux_v_windows_security/

Let's look at the arguments we often hear that Linux is not so secure:
1-Windows only suffers so your attacks because there are more Windows installations than Linux, therefore Linux wocould be just as vulnerable if it had as your Installations
2-open source is inherently less secure because malicious hackers can find flaws more easily
3-there are more security alerts for Linux than for Windows, therefore Linux is less secure than Windows
4-there is a longer time between the discovery of a flaw and a patch for the flaw with Linux than with Windows
How is it broken. Especially the first one.

Here is the complete PDF download:
Http://www.theregister.com/2004/10/22/security_report_windows_vs_linux.pdf