I'm also skeptical about the article. One part I especially disagree with is this:
One of the champions of Linux and free software in a major state agency chose to purchase Windows XP desktops for everyone in the agency. I've heard that man speaking at National Conventions for Government CIOs exalting the benefits of free software.
There are hundreds of reasons why you might choose WinXP over Linux on the desktop, and it doesn't have to include one OS being better than another (whether it's just in the decision-makers opinion or not).
The whole "only a moron would use Windows" type of attitude wears pretty thin, and often hurts the cause of Open Source. Even advocates of one particular OS (or language, or app) may have to choose an alternative, because that was the best choice at the time. When money and jobs (including your own) are on the line, you have to choose whatever works best, even if it's only better because a certain company holds an illegal monopoly. Yeah it might suck, but can't always be fixed, so you just have to work around it.
To me the difference between a good techie and an excellent techie is that the latter understands the reality of business. While most good techies can see the "ideal" technical solution right away, someone with more understanding of how business works is able to compromise to fit in with the reality of the situation. I think this is why so many all-techie start-ups fail - they go for an amazingly brilliant, near-perfect technical solution or product, then find no one actually wants it, or can afford it.
Ok, I'm rambling now, but hopefully you get the point :)
