Ah well, it's rather a "how i set up a small web server for fiddling around with stuff" not so much a professional article about security. Sorry, but the first page is like "mhh, yeah, geeks hate MS, let's use the other choices" under the hood.
Why? Because it doesn't really mention a technical choice against MS.
Don't get me wrong i would never ever use Windows Server but when i'd write such an article i'd have to find at least a few technical pros and cons for the choices i preset.
"Uhhh, the internet is more like a unixy thing" doesn't cut it.
This goes on with the choice for Ubuntu Server. Why? Is it an article about "safe and secure web server" or about "how does my grandma set up a server"?
There are much more choices in terms of reliability and proven track record like FreeBSD, OpenBSD, Debian, RHEL/CentOS. The choice was made because it's easier to set up and apparently the author is too lazy to _really_ do his homework.
In the end, i'd say if the articles title would be "beginners guide how to setup a server" i wouldn't comlain..