I don't understand what all this complaining is about. Let's look at the benefits and shortcomings of each OS:
AmigaDOS: back in the '80s and '90s, it was the only personal computer on which people could affordably program. Nowadays it's hard to get new hardware and updated software, plus the lack of memory protection is a pain.
Windows: ubiquitous, machines are cheap, but costly or difficult to use for development, painfully insecure, and horribly inconsistent.
MacOS: then, the idiot savant which did certain things wonderfully but not much else; expensive. These days, it's the only mainstream Unix or Unix-like OS which is easy to use, consistent, and has excellent software selection. Most complaints have to do with expensive hardware, but installation on non-Mac hardware isn't hard and the prices aren't really that bad (you get what you pay for - you get a premium computer).
GNU/Linux: available for cheap hardware and generally more secure than Windows, especially in default setups. Downsides are inconsistency between distributions, lack of good distro-specific documentation, idiosyncratic behavior, kitchen sink syndrome, and wanna-be-Windows syndrome.
Most people who like Amigas like to tinker, but there are different kinds of tinkering. It's like people who like working on cars - some people like to work on a car and never get it finished enough to drive, so it sits around as an always going project, whereas some people keep their cars running all the time yet work on them to make them better.
Windows is great for tinkering - blocking incoming and outgoing connections constantly is like playing Space Invaders, finding and zapping trojans is like playing Centipede, et cetera. It never ends, and some people enjoy the challenge.
GNU/Linux is getting that way, too. You're always playing with new modules, reconfiguring the X Window system, trying to figure out all the background processes running, et cetera.
Some people want the car to always be drivable. I'm like that - I run servers using NetBSD without GUIs and hardly ever reboot them. I know exactly what's running, when it runs, why it runs, and know my systems are completely secure because I can recreate each and every file in the entire OS and compare them with what's on disk.
My car, by the way, is a Diesel Chevette with 450,000 miles on it. It gets 40-50 miles per gallon, and it'll be running (and running well) long after most cars currently on the road are long gone. I know I'm definitely the exception in this case.
At the other end, I want a machine which I don't need to reboot all the time, so I don't want to tinker with it. Therefore, I use Mac OS X. Every once in a while I run Software Update, but otherwise it just runs. No problems, no modules, no trying to get the GUI to match the configuration files, no killing runaway Landscape processes. It just works, it's secure, and I have certainly gotten my money's worth for my Mac mini.
Of course there are people like me who want things to just run all the time but who run Windows and GNU/Linux. They're braver than I am, and there's nothing wrong with that at all. Everyone has a choice.
BUT - and this is an important but - putting down other people's choices doesn't make yours any better. Trying to maintain tenuous stances about silly generalizations doesn't change the truth. GNU/Linux isn't always easy, but once you get it set up to your liking it's not bad. Windows is horribly insecure, but if you're smart enough to never click on links in email and you don't use IE, you're probably much less likely to get infected than the masses. Mac OS systems aren't cheap, but you can get a used Mac or install Mac OS X on some generic Intel hardware without too much fuss.
Just remember about how people always put Amigas down for stupid reasons - and we know that it was mostly just because they were jealous!
