I'm no MS fanboy, but this is a seriously vacuous article. This quote seems to be their main argument that Windows is flawed, even though this is not much of a different frequency from Linux. There is certainly no evidence of a fundamental design flaw in Windows that their clickbait title promises.
Maybe Linux gets some fundamentals better than Windows, but I'm not even really sure it does that honestly, since Windows has come a long way since these talking points started out, and there's a lot more to operating system security then just how your Access Control works, and operating systems like Mac OS and windows are doing a lot more fundamental security work in their kernel and user space then Linux is to ensure security[0]. Plus, for security in the modern day, even the fundamentals of a unix-like operating system just aren't good enough, so it feels almost moot. Not to mention, proving Windows is worse than Linux by citing CVEs is just silly. Every piece of software will have flaws that need to be fixed, even security ones, because completely planning software out from the beginning and then verifying it from the firmware up is impractical. Linux has had its own share of CVEs in all sorts of places — like the recent xz thing, (or all the various automatic code execution vulns emacs has been closing lately), too, so it's nor like it's really on any better ground.
[0]: as much as I think their perspective is unnecessarily negative and unfair to Linux — for instance counting the sandboxing that Windows UWP apps as progress toward sandboxing, but then not counting Flatpaks, and citing the absolutely spurious fud around them to boot — this is still a good summary: https://madaidans-insecurities.github.io/linux.html