Actually this is quite amusing when you think of it in terms of the Internet. It was not designed with security in mind (or at least not what we mean by security) and I haven't heard anyone proposing we start it from scratch.
Uhhh....whatever. Since when were we discussing the security of the net? I thought we were discussing the security of computing devices, specifically end-users and servers. The overall security of the net, along with the devices that power it, is another situation entirely.

Also, MS is not the establishment. The establishment is everyone who is in this for commercial gain.
Ok. So MS is not in it for commercial gain? Yes they are, so by your definition, they are the establishment.

By my definition, the establishment is the entity that is most established, which would be MS. What I referred to are people (like yourself) who seem to get off on ranting about how they are tired of "anti-establishment" (or whatever else you would like to call linux advocates/zealots) people pounding the message boards (which I don't think was even the case here). So I termed "anti-anti-establishment", which was supposed to be a grammatically incorrect, sarcastical term to describe people engaging in said ranting.

The market ultimately determines security requirements whether we wish it too or not. The concept is one of 'acceptable losses' not total security. If a virus blows out your PC, it's not the end of the world. You clean it up and start over - or pay someone to do it for you.
Very true. So when someone posts a link to an article that advises that the public (read: consumer) to look to alternatives (read: choices in a free market economy) for increased security (read: desired product/service), then I think we ought to let said market sort it out, and not dismiss other opinions and options just because MS is "on the right track", or because we're tired of hearing how their OS has been victimized again. If it's getting old, it's because it happens so often.