This is really an argument about whether or not proprietary systems are inherently more secure. I run Arch on my main system, and when a vulnerability is disclosed, it's often patched within hours. Windows is littered with bugs, vulnerabilities, and security holes. Older versions have been left to rot, leaving thousands of systems vulnerable.
Of course, it could be argued that the weakest link in the chain is the user, but with a vulnerability like this one, I don't see how that applies.
In this case the "user" is the system manufacturer who developed an exploitable application, in this case, Lenovo.
Lenovo could sell a Linux PC with a similar application that communicated with a daemon running as root which binary was saved in /bin with 0777 permissions.
There is nothing special about Windows that makes this vulnerability possible.
As per definition of vulnerability, this is something that many Linux systems have ran into in the past. When you get outside of mainline distributed programs you see vendor issues like this all the time. 777 is a thing in Linux and people/vendors do dumb crap with it all the time. Privilege escalation to root via bad file permissions is not an uncommon problem in Linux either.
The patch for this problem is easy enough too.
Right click > security > remove full access.
If this application is widely distributed enough Microsoft may very well push a fix for it. What we don't know here is how many computers are affected by this, it could be a very large number, or it could be a few from a limited distribution with a bad setting.
Of course, it could be argued that the weakest link in the chain is the user, but with a vulnerability like this one, I don't see how that applies.