Study certifies Windows as more secure than Linux - of course, if I compare the security of RedHat and Windows and find out that the company RedHat is even slower than Microsoft, then I conclude that Linux is less secure than Windows. Because it is completely unthinkable that people who operate servers either run essential packages from upstream or get their patches from elsewhere. And there are naturally no other distributions than those of a company that charges exorbitant prices for open source and otherwise behaves in business more like Microsoft. And all of this financed by Microsoft. This is certainly a very relevant study.
The fact that it is nowhere considered whether the respective errors could actually be used for attacks and whether they are relevant for the scenario at all - who cares. Let's just throw everything into one pile. The fact that Microsoft does not publish all bugs and therefore an objective assessment of open bugs in Windows is completely impossible - who cares. The fact that it is nowhere independently documented when Microsoft was first aware of a bug and therefore an assessment of the actual duration during which one was unprotected from the respective bug is not possible - who cares. The fact that Microsoft has recently introduced bugs again (I recall the LAND attack), which had been around for a long time and that this casts a pretty bad light on their development methodology - who cares.
But how they now believe that anyone could see this as an objective measurement of vulnerability and why such things are labeled under the keyword "Research", I find really ridiculous ...