to be just as stable as Linux.
Windows is highly customized to support antivirus and to run games. For instance, the so-called DirectX is nothing but a direct access to the hardware so the games can run smoothly. But this doesn't come without a cost. Before being launched, Microsoft employees millions of dollars to test and fix it. Many companies have the exact same challenge, which is called technical debt, the extra time the developer needs to ship a feature due overall instability.
On the other hand, Linux is an OpenSource software that is maintained by volunteers, so it can't afford the same quality assurance process. Instead, it relies on a simple design that limits itself. While Windows dominates the market for games and corporate computers, Linux thrives on servers and mobile because of its affordable dependability. Why don't SMB companies simplify their software just like OpenSource software?
the greater the chance of failure
Chemistry solutions
It's tempting to change the very nature of the matter. This enables great customization to solve a great variety of problems. But, something created from scratch is not time-proven, and some of the decisions can hide unwanted consequences.
Physics solutions
If you limit yourself to not change the nature of the matter, you can build solutions that combine components that are already stable. These solutions can't fail because of the components themselves, only by the way they interact among them.
Biology solutions
Limiting yourself to not change both the matter nor the array will create something as stable as the natural selection itself. The only customization you have is the name of the species that may already solve your problem.
the greater the chance you'll make a mistake,
and the more you'll have to trial and test.