i think something that wasn't considered and must be is the reason why many geek projects are undertaken in the first place. while the need for a piece of software is important to gettin' it written, quite often software is written to support "big dick theory." guys will write things that they can show off to other people, i.e. if i'm a kernel hacker, and i get in the CREDITS file, i have a big dick. so, as long as that is a large part of the ethos of open source software development (i think ESR says quite the same thing, less crudely, without looking at the reason behind it) than women largely will be excluded as they don't (seem to) have the innate need to exhibit this behaviour.
i'm not sure i agree
it seems to me that a more successful tactic from microsoft would be to just put apache on the windows 2000 computers for free. that way, they don't need to bother with the upkeep, they don't have to lose any money over it being free, and they've taken away users from linux. microsoft doesn't really care what webserver you run because that's not where they make their money. microsoft makes it's money from the desktop installations and oem charges. by putting apache, for free, on windows 2000, microsoft would make little investment of their own and offer superior service than just making a cheap, lightweight webserver.
most importantly, though, a good webserver on a desktop machine doesn't really matter. most people don't run their websites off their own machines bandwidth and most people don't want to administer their own webpages. if anyone is going to run a large enough web site to have apache than they either need large enough computing resources (bandwidth included) to price themselves beyond most home users or enough expertise to choose the better solution instead of whatever microsoft gives them.