naturally i am going to disagree with some of your points. let me specify:

1 Why do you find it necessary to compare "apples to apples" and use paid Linux? what benefit are you gaining from leaving out free versions of Linux? especially in the server market where Ubuntu Server, OpenSuSE, and flavors of BSD are just as qualified to handle the job.

2 Expert talent more readily available? How so? By "expert" are you referring to MSCEs? I would argue that there is much more "expert-level" talent in the Linux market than there is in the Windows market. On top of that - the expert-level Linux talent is far more reachable than the Windows talent. And there are plenty of tools to centralize Linux management. Thinking that you must manage Linux machines via command line makes me wonder if you've experienced any modern Linux distributions. You can connect to one Linux desktop to another without having to touch the command line.

3 I don't think, at all, that Linux server sales are trying to use the old "it's UNIX" ploy. In fact it's quite the opposite. Today's Linux is not yesterday's UNIX. Today's Linux is as modern (and in many cases more modern) than Windows. What Linux offers is a far cheaper, more reliable, and more flexible solution than Windows. That is the sales ploy as well as the truth.

4 Have you tried modern Linux desktops? What aspect of latest GNOME, Xfce, KDE, and even E17 is harder to use than the Windows desktop? Yes, users like their start menu, their panel, their notification tray, their desktop icons...all of which Linux has. The user-friendliness argument I would have bought 5 years ago. Today? No.

5 The only area where more software is available is games. Outside of that I would like to see your sources and your numbers. Take a look at freshmeat.net and do a search for Linux software. You'll find tons of software. Oh, and can you count all of the old Windows 95/98, NT, 2000 software that won't work on XP, Vista, and Windows 7?

6 Windows Vista is just ANOTHER bump in the road. And these bumps will continue. For every good version of Windows Microsoft puts out they put out 1 or 2 horrendous versions. And who knows what problems 7 is going to cause. Linux, on the other hand, continues to improve with each release. Even the bleeding edge Fedora continues to gain rock solid stability (this coming from a distribution that is really a test-bed for Red Hat.)

7 Hardware does continue to advance and that's why Linux is able to blow Windows out of the desktop water. It was funny that Windows came out saying Vista was the most advanced user interface available. Did they bother to look at Compiz? Most likely not. Linux continues to advance on this front and many hardware vendors have already jumped on board. This will only gain more and more traction and will do so quickly.

8 I will give you the fact that Microsoft OSs have become much more secure. But Linux, from the start, was already more secure than Windows. And Linux does this without the annoyances (like UAC in Vista) that Microsoft has to add in. On top of that, in order to really keep Windows secure, third party software must be added. No so with Linux. And as for the open source argument, what about speed of patching bugs? When a bug (or security hole) is found in an open source software, it is patched almost immediately. What about Windows? How long before a patch is released?

9 Not all Linux distributions are "bleeding edge". Most Debian and BSD (which I know are not actually Linux) derivatives are far from bleeding edge. The only "true" bleeding edge distributions that see wide-spread use would be Gentoo and Fedora.

10 This one, in some cases, is true. But it's getting much better. I think the vast majority of developers are finally realizing that, in order to continue to grow, they have to get beyond their egos and develop for the end-user and not themselves.