What that you would sift through dozens of pages detailing secrity measures and comparing security of various OS's all of which speak very favourably of linux's built in security measures and then pull up and ambiguous comment and present it without context?  No that is par for the course in this back and forth conversation.

Is linux secure, yes, more so than most others, yes.  Are most security failures between the keyboard and the chair, yes. But that is beside the point.  If your OS has fundimental security issues then it is much harder for the thing between the chair and the keyboard to keep a system secure.  All other things being equal, I would perfer to work with a vetted and secure OS like the BSDs or Linux any day.

Security comes from one place, and one place only. The user. It doesn't matter how secure a vault can be, if the guy opening the vault makes a hole in it to get in better, it's not secure. By default, Linux can be hacked into just as commonly as the other systems. It also was the first to get hacked through in a hacking competition not too long ago (years). Let's not even get into all of the repositories of exploits to gain root.

Ladies and Gentlemen, allow me to make a prediction!

SteamOS will revolutionalise the gaming industry, nothing will be the same again once... Once it becomes compatible with Tegra 5 generation tablets and especially in Tegra 6 gen. Just imagine - it will no longer be PC vs. console as it is now. Imagine yourself having one Steam account and being able to play all your games on your powerful Steam PC at home and on a tablet while on the go!! You just take the Steam controller and you're set. The tablets should also work with a mouse and keyboard obviously, but that's details. Just think - you pay once and you can play all the games you have either on your PC or on the tablet with the controlls of your choice. This would be an earthquake for the market! No more half-assed games on the go, we get full-blown AAA games with PS3 or Wii U level graphics on the go and at the same time the home PC version is superior to the PS4/XO. Handhelds suddenly become obsolete, home consoles become so much less attractive, Apple products suddenly start to lack a huge function and become inferior left with just Gameloft's crap. One move and Valve kicks Sony, Nintendo, MS and Apple in the nuts.

God damn, this can be huge. And it all starts with this questionable controller...

I may end up turning my PC into a Steam OS Machine... Games should run better on its linux based system

Zero refrences, pure conjecture, and a lot of inflated hyperbole.  One of the links above shows a recent hacking competition in which a linux derivitive was not penetrated despite considerable money on the line.  If you are such a super hacker why have you not claimed the prize linked above? You sir are full of something.

Ok, links. Say hello to metasploit:

http://www.metasploit.com/

Oh and sorry I was mistaken, it was OS X, a Unix system with an Apple coat of paint on it that was hacked in 10 seconds, 4 years ago:

http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9129978/Researcher_cracks_Mac_in_10_seconds_at_PWN2OWN_wins_5k

I didn't say I can hack things quickly if I wanted to, I just said you kind of sort of half-assedly know what you are talking about. Those two require vastly different amount of knowledge.

http://www.engadget.com/2008/03/29/linux-becomes-only-os-to-escape-pwn-2-own-unscathed/

If you look at the history of these hacking competitions Windows and Mac OS get violated every year, but linux (when it is in the competiton) does not.  So your statement "Linux can be hacked into just as commonly as the other systems" is simply unfounded.

At no point did I assert that Mac was good.  It has the same bad track record as windows of leaving security holes unpatched for long periods of time.  I did not claim that all unixes are secure, at no point did I mention IRIX, AIX or any other derivitive.

Am I a security expert, no.  But I really don't think you are either.  Ican tell the difference between linux and OSX.  Your link to a network penetrating stie... I still fail to see the relevance and how that supports your claims. After reading it I failed to find anything relating to your claim there, feel free to provide a more direct link.

At no point have I defended bad users.  In fact I said that users suck from a security point of view, they are the main source of vulnerability in a system.  Yet since all computers have users this is not a point of comparison between them as far as determining which OS is more secure.  I would venture some conjecture even on that topic, the linux user base has a large portion of paranoid and technically sophisticated users (tin foil hats are gratis with a stuffed penguin it seems) so I suspect (without anything beyond anecdotal evidence) that even that may be less of a problem in the linux world.  However, I am willing to grant that one user pretty much equates to another.

Just because users suck does not however mean that all OSs suck equally.  A bad user on a good system is less vulnerable than a bad user on a bad system.  Conversely, a security concious user on a bad system will have to go to great lengths to secure it, while they can achieve good results easily on a good system, hence why DOD and NSA have special secure linux distributions for these purposes (see links in the thread previously).  

It is not justifiable to take one aspect out of context, that users suck, and then extrapolate that  into a false equivellency that all OSs are insecure because they all have users.