I would challenge that it is easier for people to use Windows. Every new version of Windows makes users adjust and learn again how to use it and most of the things new versions of Windows implement in their GUI is from Linux distributions. Since Linux distros are usually open source, GUI gets developed by the people, for the people. There is no limitation nor a reason to not have at least one Linux GUI that can be easy for new users to use, just like Windows. And I know that many were developed to look like Windows for people to make a switch, but it proved to be not as important to new users as other advancements that a new different GUI brings. So in short, if there was something good about Windows, Linux would implement it, but if there is something good about Linux, Windows will not implement it is quickly, since they don't make decisions about quality, but what makes them most money. They have a monopoly, so the free market rules don't apply to Windows, but still apply to Linux distros. Windows doesn't have to care about giving better software, they have no competition.

As for the security, there are a lot of 0-days in Windows due to corporate priorities and closed source. And when it comes to Wannacry, a lot of users still use XP, that didn't get the patches as Windows ditched it. You can use Windows very conservatively and still get malware and since you mentioned Wannacry, it is one of the examples. It spread across the LAN network as a worm using exploits discovered by NSA and leaked by ShadowBrokers. The whole structure is broken and hopeless. There shouldn't be a place for closed source software on such a low level like an operating system.