You like half agreed with me (businesses need commercial support) and then half disagreed with me, lol. Thanks for the list of hardware vendors that ship Linux. I didn't realize Lenovo and HP had that option on desktops and laptops, as I was only aware of Dell and the smaller vendors.
Windows is the last thing I’d ever want to run in an IT department. And believe me, I have plenty of experience. But don’t take my word for it, just look at the European places that are ditching Microsoft completely.
I do need some citations, because when you say this, I'm reminded of Hamburg's attempt in 2003 to switch to Linux, which they gave up on after more than a decade because of high costs and user frustration. Citing one or two news headlines doesn't make it a movement.
We can all hate Windows, but accept the reality that every large organization voluntarily chooses Windows for good reasons. You're basically implying that every head of IT department is a moron except for you for choosing Windows over Linux for their fleet, which is some cognitive dissonance. This isn't the year 2000, with Linux being some newfangled thing. Everybody knows about Linux.
Let's look at running Adobe Photoshop on Windows vs. Linux. On Windows, Adobe fully supports the operation of the software on Windows, and Microsoft is committed to compatibility and ensure software applications work. This is what you get for your money - something that you can depend on working at the start of every workday. On Linux, you'll need WINE, which introduces a third party required to make Photoshop run. However, you're not paying for WINE, which means you're getting zero support. So if some Ubuntu security update comes out, and breaks WINE with Photoshop, you're up shit creek until some random community member fixes it or it happens to get prioritized. That's lost productivity ($$$). Or, perhaps you decide to run a commercially supported WINE distribution like CrossOver then, which gives you better guarantees about software compatibility on an ongoing basis. That costs money, which is against the initial argument here of Linux being cheaper, and it still doesn't give you as good of a guarantee as just running Windows would have. Even this Crossover vs. Windows comparison chart on the CrossOver website makes Windows look like a bargain, because the loss of productivity of a user even hitting one issue is going to dwarf the difference in price.
or... maybe it's just diligent to have a very strong body of evidence before you go ahead and make a huge change to your country's economic policy based on something?