UAC is broken mess:No, they do it because they don't know what they are doing.
This has nothing to reality. Linux has proper security models while Windows has broken ones. Windows is also using much less restrictive security model and IE is its integral part that makes it security mess.Ubuntu is not all Linux. Yes, there are some distros that make it actively harder to run as root all the time, but none of them makes it impossible. It is in fact very easy to circumvent such restrictions and many users that come from Windows actually want to do that, because they don't know what they are doing.
Distros that assume that the user knows what he is doing don't have such restrictions at all, it is no problem to run Arch, Slackware or Gentoo as root all the time. This is not something that is magically different on Linux. The first thing that makes your system secure or insecure is the user, not the OS.
It's shit, because they made it like that. Users can't do much to protect themselves. It's not about running it as root, but it's about bad design.So now you are changing from "NT is shit" to "NT's users are shit". Why is a kernel shit because it is used by dumb users? If I run Linux as root all the time does that make Linux shit?
In short: saying Windows "has" security model is ridiculous and if we agree it has something like that it must be said it's a broken mess.In short: The Windows security model is not bad per se, in fact it is pretty good. What is bad is the users that don't want to give up some convenience for having a secure system. But that is not the fault of the kernel.