cspilman,
Who's the professional here? Me, for giving my "educated" opinion (based on my personal experience, not on "friend of a friend"

or you for questioning it because I don't happen to agree with you? I was replying to pquillet regarding his query on AutoCAD and/or dwg files, not to mferguson from 4 years ago. (should really have been a new thread by the way)
I did mention there are a number of good Linux-based alternatives - in fact I use one, Qcad running on my FreeBSD-based machine. But it won't load 3D AutoCAD drawings (I've tried). I have also used Varkon under Linux. And I have personally had no success running AutoCAD under wine. I stand by what I said, even if it did run it would be much slower because of the emulation layer overhead.
As far as I know Star Office does not use Visual Basic, they use "Star Basic" and excel spreadsheets with VB programming lose a lot of the programming when loaded into Star Office (again, from personal experience, with version 5.2). There is no mention on their site that they do more than load MS Office files, which is true and is probably sufficient for a lot of people's needs. But if you rely on VB programming and have to convert it all to "Star Basic" to switch, that's a compromise that you have to take into account. Just as switching from AutoCAD to another CAD program involves a lot of manual file conversion (again from painful personal experience).
If someone is going to consider making the switch from Windows to Linux they need to consider ALL the factors involved in that switch. I personally would prefer that they did switch, but they need to understand it's not simply a matter of load new OS, load new programs, and go. Especially where CAD is concerned, many of the major CAD programs are windows-specific (AutoCAD, Solid Works, Solid Edge). If you need to pass information with suppliers and customers you need to know that you can convert the information to a format they can deal with. Again, possible compromises. Much of the information in a CAD file is lost on conversion, even between windows-specific programs.
I don't understand why people have to continually "compare" Linux to Windows all the time. And to quote the article you linked to,
even though the title of this narrative is "Linux vs. Windows 2000," it must be stated that truth in such a comparison can be elusive
Each person has to first decide what they want in terms of an OS and then look at which works better for them, which is exactly what the article was doing. A generic "Linux vs. Windows" is like a generic sub-compact vs pick-up, which vehicle should I buy?