Re: lkcl's article, I think the terms of the argument are a bit off. Free Software "wins" when there are computing platforms which permit interoperability, because this interoperability allows people to choose Free Software solutions over proprietary ones. Internet services do not all need to be implemented with Free Software in order for Free Software to win.
lkcl seems to be making the argument that services are the new desktop PC / operating system, which is not really a valid comparison. Go back to RMS's parable of the printer drivers -- Free Software is threatened by proprietary hardware and software platforms because they tend to limit the effectiveness of Free Software platforms. In the case of the AI lab printer, the owner of the driver source code's refusal/inability to hand over the code deprived the lab of important freedoms related to the ownership of the printer. Having a proprietary software platform that actively discourages interoperability (e.g., Samba) as the dominant OS is Bad, because it means that you, as a Free Software author (and, deep down, really just a dude who wants his printer to work right) have a much harder time getting what you want, if you can get it at all.
But the services model of software has a significantly different business model. Whereas Microsoft needs Windows to stay "closed" in order to keep people hooked and sell the next version of Windows, Google has the liberty to provide an open API for their services, because as long as you're looking at their ads, it doesn't really matter to them how you use the service. Free Software doesn't need to replace Google Maps on the server side, for example, in order to "win" -- it just needs Google Maps to allow interopability on the client side so that people who want to innovate / experiment / get work done their way can do so. And that's been working out okay so far. And as long as people want to continue using their Free Software desktop platforms, they can do so.