The upside on the Windows approach is that you can't get it wrong because the decisions are out of your hands. The downside is that this self-adjusting sacrifices stabilty and the ability to self-diagnose. The upside for Linux is that you can see all the cords and decide for yourself. The downside is that it won't stop you from picking the wrong one and screwing things up hardcore.
While I agree with your sentiment and upvoted your node, I have big disagreements with this analogy.
Maybe "you can't get it wrong" with Windows, but you can rest assured that Windows will get it wrong for you on occasion. And when Windows screws things up hardcore for you, it'll mean re-installing the whole damn thing. But, with Linux (or Unix), things getting that hosed are pretty unlikely. And when they do, you can rest assured that it was probably the result of something stupid that you did. That means it's something you can prevent next time. I much prefer that to the cross-your-fingers-and-try-again method required of Windows users.
Some might argue that they'd rather just spend an hour or two re-installing than spend half a day trying to fix something they broke. I understand that reasoning, but it is short sighted. In five years, such a person will still be re-installing anytime something breaks (which will be just as often as before.) Meanwhile, some who is willing to figure out what went wrong and fix it will have gained oodles of experience that will help them to both fix errors more quickly and prevent them in the first place.
In other words, with Linux (or Unix) you get 5 years of experience. With Windows, you get 1 year of experience 5 times over.
"My two cents aren't worth a dime.";