Whilst I can't comment on OSx (having only had a fleeting experience of it) much of the crticism leveled in the article that you have posted can also be applied to Windows, and much of it is simply not relevant as a comparison between the three operating systems:
"Incomplete or unstable drivers for some hardware. Problems setting up some hardware (like sound cards or TV tuners/Web Cameras/Wi-Fi cards)." - now I note the use of the word "some" in this sentence, and I can honestly say that all my hardware works just fine using Linux. However, some hardware is equally difficult to get working on Windows (especially older hardware on newer Windows OS)
"Under some circumstances GUI becomes slow and unresponsive" - as does Windows
"Many distros' repositories do not contain all available open source software. User should never be bothered with using ./configure && make && make installer. It should be possible to install any software by downloading a package and double clicking it (yes, like in Windows, but probably prompting for user/administrator password)." - I love this. Windows does not have a central software repository at all, so how this can be seen as a comparitive criticism I fail to see. Equally, if you want the latest and greatest, or cutting edge OS on Windows you can pop along to sourceforge, download the source and compile yourself, exactly the same as Linux. For installing pre-built binaries on Linux there is always gdebi, which is equivalent to the double click method on Windows (the only difference being that WIndows calls Windows Installer and Linux uses gdebi). This is simply an example.
"Few software titles, inability to run familiar Windows software (some applications which don't work in Wine have zero Linux equivalents)." - because Windows and Linux are different beasts. It should be considered a bonus that Windows apps run at all on Linux. The reverse cannot be said to be true.
I could go on.
I guess a big part of me just wants a very stable desktop system that doesn't require endless tweaking or time investment.
Then don't tweak. SImply install the OS and get on with the work at hand. Most mainstream distros are mature enough that they will work quite happily out of the box. Again, since your focus is on the comparisons with other OS, if you want to customise Windows beyond changing a few colours then you need to install something such as WindowBlinds, which would constitute tweaking and which brings it's own level of complexity and instability to the table. As I understand it, such customisation options on MacOS are virtually non-existant.
So it's just as easy to break other OSes as it is to break LInux. The problem may be that because Linux is free it's more tempting to tweak than it would be on the other OSes, where the closed nature makes it more difficult to experiment or tweak. This, however, is not a fault of the OS but of the user.
And generally such comparisons will fail to mention that, certainly in WIndows, a rogue application can bring down the entire system, perhaps costing hours of work in the process. In Linux I have never seen this happen, and even if one application crashes to the point of no return it is usually possible to save other data before a reboot.
And "no", I'm not a Linux evangelist. I use both Windows and Linux and can see strength in Windows in certain areas, but for day to day desktop use I prefer Linux because it reflects my personality and is altogether more fun.