> Windows deployment isn’t bloated, it just has a ton of actual functionality that real users want and that doesn't come for free
A base Windows installation takes up a lot of space mainly because of Microsoft's compatibility commitments and the implementation strategy it uses to maintain them, and to some extent the way libraries are typically distributed. Neither OS features, nor hardware compatibility, nor the selection of included applications has much to do with that. Microsoft delivers some real value through their compatibility commitment, but it's a different thing than functionality.
> The UX for the admin is also super nice, with tons of online articles and communities with people who are willing to help you do what you’re trying to do
This is frankly a stunning claim. From local configuration being the hodgepodge of many generations of GUIs to the incompleteness to the painful slowness of completing a task through visual imitation to the fundamental hostility automation to the slowness and incompleteness of PowerShell to the absolutely anarchic nature of software management on the platform, administering Windows machines is a cumbersome, manual mess.
> communities with people who are willing to help you do what you’re trying to do, as opposed to tell you why what you want is bad.
This is an illusion afforded to those who come to both operating systems with Windows-centric expectations. In this very forum, you can find Windows users who respond to posters who complain about defects that come up with Microsoft's official Windows port of OpenSSH by telling them they never should have tried to use rsync to transfer files between Windows machines.
With any operating system, there will always be people who respond to questions involving solutions that are at odds with the paradigm, strengths, or cuatoms of the operating system with advice to re-think the problem. (And sometimes, they'll be right!)