Linus is the maintainer of the Linux kernel. Linux is a product of the work of many people.

Linux is free, and can be redistributed without securing licensing or rights to do so.

Microsoft Windows is a proprietary product, which many people are only exposed to from the initial install on their bought hardware. The company who supplies the hardware, along with the company that supplies the software engage in contractual deals to allow this to happen.

Microsoft's image benefits when it is known that they do due-dilligence in checking out the suppliers who they allow to represent their product through licensing.

How are you okay with companies who create malware for corporations for pay? They deserve no responsibility themselves for simply existing with nefarious motivations? Microsoft requires licensing their product to use it, and goes an extra step by providing evaluation of the products which use their licensed software, and are vocally against the addition of crapware; but they take no blame when they allow their product to be continually licensed by a vendor that does harm to the image?

To answer your question: The distribution that is responsible for spreading the adware should be held responsible, as should the developers of that adware. That's likely why Mint became so popular (numbers wise) after all the Ubuntu fiascos in semi-recent history.

I don't think it's as simple as a one-party fault. Sorry.