As we live in a commercial world.... Linux and commercial software don't mix very well.
Bill Gates would disagree with you. They have taken many steps to play better in the open source community because they (finally) saw the writing on the wall.
Open source is not just linux. And I would be willing to bet more people are using open source software in Windows than not. Whether it's open office, vlc or whatever, open source is all over the place. AviSynth, one of the codebases I worked on a decade ago is probably on ten percent of the desktops out there - if you used a Windows DVDripper in the previous decade, odds are pretty good it installed this because so many of them used avisynth to do the preprocessing. That's open source software. A lot of the code evovled its way to other packages like vlc and mplayer. That's more gpl code, and it works damn well with proprietary software.
Linux by design is broken. Deliberately.
This is idiocy. No one is "forcing" anyone to do anything - if you want to release everything in binary blobs, go right ahead - just don't link your binaries with GPL code. This is no different than any other "broken" licensing agreement between any other copyright holders. If you want to get into a discussion of copyright being broken, that has nothing to do with the topic at hand.
There is an inherent design philosophy to gpl code - because it is always "out there" it is never really completed. Code is always as fresh as you want it to be. This actually makes it MORE competitive than closed source software. You can see this in how rapidly (for example) the unity desktop has evolved - a year ago it was almost unusable, being little more than an evolved experiment. Today it is, in many ways, one of the most productive desktops out there. That's one year - and how many years did MS spend coming up with Windows 8? They've been working on that code since before Windows 7 was released. If you have a desktop you like and don't want the latest features, guess what? no one is forcing you to update it or change it.
This sort of rapid cycling is one of the major strengths of open source software, to the point many of the major players are finding ways to adopt it. Intuit, for example, calls it "design for delight" - their philosophy is to get the specs from a client, give them a quick basic version of the product, then use their feedback to evolve the product. This eliminates many of the dead ends wherein time is spent debugging and evolving a "feature" that turns out to be a misguided path. Yes, it means some of the stuff in the beginning is going to be unevolved or "broken" - but it also allows the product to evolve holistically, based on immediate feedback from the users. If you dislike this notion, by all means use windows.