Linux vs. Windows isn't a particularly great argument in that vein, PJ. They have completely different modes of operation. Windows is focused on putting as much stuff as possible into their operating systems, and doesn't pay much concern to security in the face of innovation. Linux, OTOH, is a very conservative OS, based solely on base functionality with very little innovation and virtually no necessity to update. The focuses are completely different. Windows focuses on inexperienced users such as grandparents, kids, and the computer illiterate. Linux focuses mostly on the highly experienced consumers; namely programmers and testers. You build differently for different customer bases, and you build differently for different price points. Windows is meant to be sold, so they put a ton of effort and time into the development phase of their products. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of engineers working on Windows at any given moment, and they are almost always working on new features, new ideas, new innovations. Linux, OTOH, has a free price point, and the base really hasn't changed much since its inception. All of the various iterations of Linux (Unix, Ubuntu, etc) were created by other programmers at different times focusing on what they needed Linux to do at any particular moment. The development cycle of the two is highly incongruous.
Now, for a better example, look at Apprentice vs Magic Online. Apprentice is fan-developed, and it shows. It's blocky, inefficient, difficult to manage, and harder to build in. Magic Online has gained a reputation for performing relatively well. The menus are well designed, playing requires less effort than Apprentice, and the whole package is easy to navigate and use, even for beginners.
The "less time to fix the bugs" means that there are more engineers working on the problem. It might take more man-hours than a one-person gig, but the amount of real-time necessary to fix certain issues is going to be less with more people looking at the problem and working to fix it.
