Earlier quoted context omitted.
It says more about the quality of the review than about the relative merits of the 3 systems. These things are simple: If Ubuntu were so much better, or just plain better, than other operating systems, more people would use it. Firefox is, and has been for a long time, much better than IE, and so people use it. OpenOffice/LibreOffice is not better than Microsoft Office, and so people don’t prefer it over Microsoft Of…
The cost of switching is a high barrier for many people. Changing from Windows to Ubuntu requires you to find equivalents for all of the software you need. Changing from your browser -> Firefox = most websites will still work, no additional effort on anyone. Changing from Microsoft Office to OpenOffice forces you to ensure all the documents open correctly and others can open yours correctly. It's not always so black…
Yes, but that goes both ways. If Ubuntu lacks equivalents for all of the software you need, you cannot say that it's "better than the other OSs", i.e. software availability is a very important metric of "better" in an OS, even more important than the network stack being 5% faster, or the filesystem supporting more esoteric features etc.
So, it would be like saying "Ubuntu is better than OS X/Win if we exclude things that also matter a lot".