Re: licensing technology
That statement has some problems. First, it is begging the question that people claim Linux IS more secure than the Microsoft or Darwin kernel. Not sure if many people claim that outright, there are patches, configurations, and SELinux that improve your generic kernel, which is oft for ease-of-use, not security.
My biggest complaint about your article is the cherry picking of examples. Sure you can find examples where proprietary kernels have potentially better security models. That is why climate deniers, anti-vaxxers can always trot out some idiot to argue the against the consensus that an university was foolish enough to give a PhD. Doesn't mean that those examples are not genuine security issues that need addressing. Proprietary kernels are black boxes; it is easy point out all of Linux's flaws but not see all the potential architecture problems or hacks that keep proprietary kernels operating.
Sidenote: does the Linux kernel even touch fonts? Microsoft pushing something to userland that should have never been in the kernel isn't a great flex.
So objectively? Incomplete information, I'll just stick best practices over relying on my kernel.