Re: "Windows Server is $750" - Word to the wise - a Linux server does the job better for $0
> Is Microsoft paying you?
If you actually READ the article, you'd see that he does in fact mention open source/free software. Did you not see the bit that starts "Unless you rely a great deal on open source ..." ?
Yes, for some of us, Linux (or other FOSS of choice) does the job just fine - in fact all the servers I manage are Linux. However, there are actually a lot of jobs where Windows is the norm, and frankly that's not going to massively change in the very near future. Lots of big organisations are wedded to MS stuff, well and truly in so deep that it would be very difficult to extricate themselves if they wanted to. For example, regardless of what you or I may think about them on a technical or ethical level, things like Active Directory and Exchange do "just work very nicely" for those who have a MS only setup (which is still most large businesses).
As others have suggested, your style of outbursts are actually very unhelpful when it comes to "selling" non-MS into corporates. People at all levels see these sorts of outbursts and assume that it's representative of everyone involved with free/open source software - and it's enough to give them a bias against before you even open the conversation. Really, it's not helpful.
So, assuming Trevor Pott is working for an outfit, or in industries, where MS use is the norm, then his test lab needs to run MS as well. Running Linux on the test setup would be 0% useful if the requirement is to test new setups of (say) clusters of servers running MS SQL Server.