I didn't say Linux is fully secure.
You said "Linux is the safest OS in the world" Which is dead wrong. It's not "safer" than any other OS, and you are misguiding others if you tell them so.
Every OS has a loophole.
Sigh. No, everyOS needs to be properly secured by the user or whomever installed it. You can't just go with the default options and assume your safe, this goes for any OS, and on the case of Linux especially for servers, since there is plenty of written malware for them, not to mention sendmail, that constant source of exploits. My point is, it doesn't matter what the OS is that you are using, none of them are "safer" than any other. That just doesn't make sense. It's like saying that a Trailer truck is "safer" than a Mazda Miata. The entire point isn't to be "safer" when in a car crash, the point is to prevent them entirely.
but when compared to windows,Linux is better and secure.
Yep, Linux is so secure, even kernel.org got hacked via a root privilege escalation. As for servers, sure, Linux servers really aren't that hard to use/run. Until they are. Then it takes two weeks of web searching, forum-hopping, reading blog posts that explain how to fix your exact issue on a version from eight years ago and so it isn't even slightly applicable anymore so why the *censored* is it the top search result on every major search engine, getting called stupid by various elitist Linux communities when you ask for help, pissing off an entire Linux community when you try to prevent the name-calling by starting with "I don't know much Linux so please walk me through this" and getting called stupid instead of getting answers to something that "everyone should already know", getting told to just use Google (which of course gives me old blog posts and forum topics from eight years ago and isn't the least bit helpful) by elitists who "don't have the time to answer every newb's questions" but apparently have plenty of time to sit on forums and call them names all day, getting sick of said elitist communities and reformatting and reinstalling Linux to see if that helps (which it doesn't), finally having someone who is willing to help give you some big long list of commands to type in and then calling you stupid and leaving when you ask what it means, and eventually you just say "Screw this, I'm buying a Windows license."
If you don't know that why do u call yourself as a programmer??LOL.
What does operating system security or OS choice have to do with programming? Absolutely nothing. This is a argument to irrelevance.
I think you are addicted to windows.
my laptop runs Mint 10.(Which brings up another point I will get to) I don't think it's a case of me being "addicted to windows" (what a silly concept) But rather me actually being realistic and not a Linux zealot. Not everybody who sees it thinks it's some sort of cure for cancer. In fact if anything, on the desktop, it's still a solution in search of a problem. At the moment it's primary selling point is "It's not Windows!" Which only goes so far. It's come far but it still hardly compares UI wise to even windows 95, and on the server somehow despite it being there from nearly the beginning windows server is making huge inroads in it's markets.
are you here for arguing or helping??
Both. I see far too many people paint this happy jolly picture of Linux where the person doesn't have to do anything and everything works. And then when that person has issues suddenly the people painting those jolly pictures dissappear, leaving the people who are realistic and actually know what they are doing to clean up the mess. Did I say they shouldn't try Linux? NO! I didn't say that. I was arguing against your FUD that Linux is "safer" which implies that it is inherently more secure, which it isn't. They are merely different Operating Systems. There is no reason Not to diversify and learn them all, but to fool oneself into thinking they are somehow "safer" is just plain foolish, and to spread the FUD that it is is doing Linux a disservice.
As to my running of Mint 10, after the release of Mint 11, I realized something.
There is no supported way to actually upgrade a existing system to a new version without wiping it. The only way I found would be to direct aptitude to the repos for Mint 11, but that was unsupported and probably not a good idea (And it's important to note that it is considered a bad idea by the same people that still thing vi is a good configuration UI). This is probably the biggest shortfall I've encountered so far, aside from having to edit config files for nearly any change I make (really takes me back to windows 3.1, that). But I do digress. to Answer the OP's questions:
is there any danger is using Linux instead of Windows?
No.
Is it more vulnerable to collecting any viruses or spyware when surfing the web?
No.
Does it come with or is it compatible with anti-virus software that commonly runs in Windows OS?
No, and No, however there are some AV programs you can find that run on Linux, like ClamAV. Typically the Linux approach is to not run an AV at all and assume everything is safe, which has worked out in a Rube-Goldberg fashion since nobody has been bothered to write any high-saturation Linux viruses that attack desktop machines. Most of them target servers, and those that do target desktops aren't "distributed" in a way that the typical desktop user will encounter them.
Is it compatible with programs that would have run in Windows?
No, but there are almost always alternatives. If there is a Windows Program you absolutely need to use, you shouldn't be running Linux at all! WINE is not quite mature in it's support of a lot of the Windows APIs. Usually if the program is complicated enough not to have a Linux equivalent, the windows version isn't going to run on WINE. Very seldom will there be a Windows program you absolutely must have that doesn't have a windows equivalent, unless you are into some professional level stuff. (and even then, LMMS is pretty on par with FLStudio, and even (IMO) somewhat easier to navigate). Anyway, to summarize- No, it's not compatible with programs that run on Windows. But you won't need them, since there are Linux equivalents.
My laptop has Windows Vista 32-bit. Could I expect any clashes or issues with the hardware since the laptop was intended for Windows OS?
I wouldn't say so. But it depends on the distro you choose, as well. I would suggest trying several, and seeing which works best for you. Ideally via the method geek-9pm noted, via a LiveCD of the distribution. This way you can see how well it works for you, bearing in mind that it will of course run much faster of your HD than from the disc.
