I'm sorry to say that it is unlikely that you will find any change in
attitude concerning Microsoft and corporate thinking.

>From start to finish, Microsoft has aggressively pursued a strategy of
integration and interdependence.  After 10 years or more, you see the
fruits of their labor.  The business world has become so deeply
entrenched in it that it will take at least another 15 years or so to
break that cycle. 

That of course, means that something disasterous will have to happen to
break that hold, before change can even start.  It is unlikely the the
DoJ will actually fulfill any anti-trust settlement, because Microsoft
and it's followers have pretty much bought their way out of the spirit
of the law.  As it currently stands, I'm sorry to say, the most likely
you will get is to sneak in a server every now  and then.  I can imagine
only 4 future scenarios that will work in your benefit, Greg. 

1. It is a fact that hetrogeneous networks are far less likely to fail
completely.  In other words, if it's all Microsoft, the first big nasty
problem will wipe it out.  Corporate disaster management seldom takes
that into account.  These are great concerns, normally ignored by
everyone. Software engineers,  and IT managers seldom sleep at night.
Now that it is a Microsoft world, it is only a matter of time before a
new virus will arrive that will massively cripple computer systems
across the globe in a matter of hours or days.

2. Someone develops a solid, open-sourced, free middleware platform and
Application Program Interface.  Java was originally intended to be this
platform, but due to Microsoft's direct and deliberate interference in
1990's, as well as Sun Microsystems' policies, that hasn't occurred.  A
middleware platform would allow programs to be developed wholesale that
are not dependent on Windows to run, hence Windows would not be
required.

Microsoft is so afraid of programs being ported to and from Windows that
they deliberately removed all POSIX cross-platform from Windows 2000 and
up, even though Microsoft was one of the original signatories of the
standard.  This makes it purposely difficult to migrate software to and
from Windows, encouraging vendor lock-in.
 
3.  The open source world creates products on the Windows platform, or
creates interoperable systems, thus displacing their corporate
counterparts.  I think this is the most unlikely scenario actually.
Programmers are an antagonistic group - I know, as I am one. We either
hate or love Microsoft.  There are very few in between. Microsoft has
done a very good job at PR to polarize the programmers, because
programmers are what make or break Microsoft.  There literally are
schools that are sponsored by Microsoft to ensure that new programmers
are exposed to Microsoft first, or depending on your point of view -
with - any alternatives.

Now that software patents are wholesale in the industry, it makes this
even more unlikely. Microsoft patented their CIFS protocol, aka
"file-sharing" in Windows, then licensed to everyone as an open standard
- BUT deliberately said you CANNOT use it for GPL or other similar
"share-alike" licenses.  You can look it up, if you don't believe me.
To do so is a legal liability here in the US.

4. Microsoft's licensing and subscriptions will cost too much to be
viable.  Currently, the subscription model used by Microsoft is only a
problem for small to mid-range businesses.  The corporate giants have
money to burn. 
 

Sorry to be so negative, but it's a harsh IT world out there.  

Fortunately, I work with an ISP who has Windows servers, but runs a
70/30 shop with "*nix" as the 70 percent.
 



  
-- 
"So many of our dreams at first seem impossible, then they seem
improbable, and then when we summon the will, they soon become
inevitable."
                                - Christopher Reeve