The biggest operational hazard to any personal computer is being forced to update it by dependencies outside of your control.
The next biggest hazard is giving in to the temptation to update it because you think updating will improve something.
The operational instability of a given system is a distant but significant third place hazard, which is difficult to mitigate because of the lack of clear understanding about what the system is good for and how it should work in the first place.
If you truly don't care to how a personal computer works (or can't know due to some limitation) and you find yourself dependent on other people to deliver an appliance to do something — which by definition you only know how to do because you were shown — then you are ensnared in the technology and issues about stability are mostly about imperfections in a social contract, and rarely about about imperfections in any instance of the technology.
Everybody knows how to what they do with a personal computer because they are motivated by curiosity about its utility.
Linux is useful, and if you find utility motivating, you can learn how to use Linux to get work done. Just like Win and mac.
Along with linux's utility, you also get the complete freedom to purpose the system as you see fit, whereas Win and mac impose sharp limits on your freedom.
As to the value of your freedom and the value of social contracts, that's a complicated domain of tradeoffs.
As history has presented to us all a great case study in these trade offs in the form of personal computers, we find ourselves subject to the enduring observation that individuals who trade liberty for security penultimately suffer the lack of both. But you might not notice if you're very lucky, and the computer industry has given rise to more than its fair share of very lucky people.
Who knew?
