That's just an Microshit's FUD campaign, and I'm surprised that You are referencing this shit.
It's impossible to explain all the security aspects of Linux-based systems vs Microshit OS, but here's just one thing to consider:
There are only few viruses targeting Linux-based systems, despite the fact, that the Linux systems are the most widely used - Linux is de facto running our world.
In case of Winblows, the number of viruses spawned
every single day is several times higher than the
total number of viruses ever created for Linux
in the history.
What's also very important - none of viruses designed for Linux have never caused a global infection - because most of linux viruses are theoreitcal projects, not really harmfull.
Sandboxing:
Linux is "sandboxing" every single application or service (process separation).
The claim that "There is no strong sandboxing in the standard Linux desktop" is simply a FUD - "strong sanboxing" is an undefined term, and the purpose of using it is just to support the FUD - the article does not explain what exactly this term is supposed to mean.
Exploit Mitigations
Most programs on Linux are written in memory unsafe languages such as C or C++ which causes the majority of discovered security vulnerabilities. Other operating systems have made more progress on adopting memory safe languages such as Windows which is leaning heavily towards Rust, a memory-safe language.
FUD method squared, there's no such thing as memory-safe-language.
That article is written by a Microshit troll, it sinks for a mile - and You should know it.