Publishing house scale of web server evil

Kevin Burton recently checked to see which operating system the websites of different US presidential candidates are built on. The executive summary: Democrats use lots of Linux while Republicans (Ron Paul excepted) mainly use Windows.

Some have suggested a correlation between Windows web server usage and being evil*. This makes sense as only somebody with no soul could love ASP.

Does the theory hold true in the publishing world?

• PLoS run Linux
  
• Nature run Linux
  
• Science run Linux
  
• Wiley run Solaris
  
• Elsevier run Windows 2000
  
• Springer run Windows 2003
  

So from a purely progressive science on the web point of view.... yeah, sort of.

Springer, Elsevier and Wiley are pretty big companies and have lots of different sites, so maybe it's doing them a disservice to assume that whatever serves their root domain is their primary choice of OS. For example, I couldn't tell what Elsevier's ScienceDirect site runs because NetCraft returns 'unknown', so maybe it runs Linux.... or maybe NetCraft just doesn't have an entry for CRUSHED UP PUPPIES AND THE SWEAT OF THE OPPRESSED.

Trade publishing, for completeness:

• Canongate (arty Edinburgh based independent) run Linux
  
• Penguin (ironically) run Solaris 8
  
• Macmillan (publish Jeffrey Archer, employ me) run Windows 2000
  
• Simon & Schuster (publishing Lindsey Lohan's autobiography) run Windows 2003
  
• HarperCollins (owned by News International) run Windows 2003
  

* Don't read this the wrong way. Microsoft do lots of cool stuff nowadays too. But IIS is cold and heartless.