Which they probably wouldn't have been hacked had they been using even an older version of Linux. Linux will probably cost more in labor costs because you have to hire IT people who are actually competent, but it would greatly reduce all other IT costs. Why aren't those systems "updated"? Because of Licensing fees to MS? Costs? Sure, if the use Red Hat or one of the other companies that charge for support and special features (it is illegal to actually charge for Linux itself), then there would be some costs involved, but then a few good IT guys could use a free version. How much does your department pay for using Windows? How much for other software, such as office suites that would be free/included in Linux versions?
Yes, viruses are installed due to user error, such as choosing to install windows. However, that does not change what a virus is. Phreakers/script kiddies deploy most viruses, not true hackers. But then, I haven't had to use a Virus checker or worry about them for years now, I simply didn't install the most prolific virus out there, Windows, in the first place. I also don't have an OS the checks in all the time with it's manufacture so they can "ensure" I'm not using in "illegal" software. A feature, which if hacked, leaves your system wide open btw.
Has nothing to do with being "mad". Providing people with an alternative view point and letting them gain knowledge is not about anger or emotions.