Except it's already taking off. And with the Steambox being Linux based as well, I can only imagine more studios will consider writing their PC games with more platform agnostic code.
Also, lets not forget that the Wii, PS3 and all the various mobile platforms (bar Windows Phone, but nobody buys that crap anyway) are all powered by OpenGL. So it's actually DirectX that's in the minority.
Moot point as there's more nonsense arguments made against Linux than there is against Windows. Even in your post, you made a few misnomers (the insinuation that OpenGL is only used on Linux desktops, the completely misguided remark about Linux gamers running their desktop as root and the fallacy that Windows is patched quicker than Linux is).
If you don't like the RAM comparisons, then how about the argument of Windows being less efficient because processes generally run slower than their Linux counterparts?
First of all, how is Steam going to "jacked"? It's all pulled and checksumed from authorized repositories. The attack would have to happen at Valvue HQ, in which case Windows users would likely be the primary target anyway (based on install base - and I'm not saying Linux is more secure because less people are running it. Just talking about how the attack would manifest in the real world).
Next, and as already pointed out by others, nobody runs Steam as root. In fact nobody should be running any desktop as root. Linux isn't like Windows where home users are given "administrator" permissions as standard. However I will agree that a lot of damage can still be done without root permissions (in terms of the users data is still exposed).
That's rubbish. Security experts are frequently complaining about how slow Microsoft are at patching reported vulnerabilities in Windows when compared to Linux. And worse yet, there's even been reports recently leaked which state how Microsoft report exploits to government agencies before patching them.
The turnaround for patching Linux software is actually very impressive. The Apache bug which made DDoS attacking sites easier was patched within a day or two. The recent kernel bug was already patched in the latest kernels before the bug was even discovered. And a lot of core security systems (eg OpenSSL) is heavily scrutinized
If you really want to compare the security between Linux and Windows though, I'll give you a few more examples:
- the standard Linux passwords file is encrypted with a salt - which is more than Windows does with it's users passwords (they're encrypted without a salt).
- Many distros ship AppArmor, which is built on top of SELinux which was part developed by the NSA in an effort to further harden the Linux kernel via Mandatory Access Controls. So while the NSA were getting details about Windows vulnerabilities, they're hardening the security of Linux desktops.
- Then you services that automatically reduce their permissions in Linux (eg Apache will run as it's own user and group) - this is standard practice so that any vulnerability that is discovered means that the scope of the access gained is significantly diminished. While this can be done in Windows - it's far from standard practice.
- You also have file system permissions which are required to make an application executable. Thus you cannot just save a file as .EXE and have a working executable.
Windows has come a long way though. Win7 is a significant advancement over XP. And I've always maintained that Windows can
be secured tightly if given to someone who knows what they're doing. But that doesn't mean that your comment about Windows patching malware quicker than Linux in any way accurate.