The whole argument for open source software rests on the assumption that flaws will exist, scrutiny will find them, and shared, mutual need will lead to a solution being found, propmtly. The greater the list of patches, a piece of software has, is usually a reflection of it's importance, to people, and how well its integrity is overseen and maintained, not a sign of any particular weakness.

Software, like buildings needs mainrtaining. For eaxmple, I dare say the heating bill for Scarborough Castle is rather lower than the one for Windsor Castle, but that doesn't mean I'd rather stay overnight in scarborough Castle.

There's no need for Microsoft dweebs to get all touchy about this and start pre-emptively pointing <insert random open source product, here>.: the only folks to pipe up and carp about this sort of thing as if it were a sign of weakness on Microsoft's part, are the ones who ride on the coattails of technology, while contributing little to the effort.

Justifying lots of bugs instead of critically looking at the process that allowed them to exist in such great numbers isn't riding on the coattails of technology?

The whole argument for open source software is certainly not the assumption that flaws will exist, it's that being open, it can be modified for whatever the reason so you have what you need running on a system instead of what you end up with if it were a closed, or especially, monopolized industry that doesn't feel inclined to give you the drivers seat on your own rig.