Yes I am sure most don't, but what about that 10%? Why should they have to pay £100 for a web server? Visual Web Developer would get more users (when it is out), if there was a web server on their machine without paying extra (there is the one for testing,
but what about for others on the home LAN that want access).
Because, in the cold harsh light of day, the 10% who want a webserver but can't afford £100 don't make a big enough impact in sales to justify it. And if they can't afford the extra £100 for Pro, where on Earth are they going to get the money for VS?
Teaching Open Source is much cheaper than teaching Microsoft technologies - it does not mandate that the student has to use a certain OS, so more can be taught. Is C# even taught by universities/colleges? Java is taught a lot (perhaps because the tools to develop
it a free).
Rubbish. How many Universitys/Colleges out there run XP Home on all their systems? I'm betting it's close to none of them. Academic pricing makes the difference between Home/Pro a moot point, even on a very tight budget. When it comes to things like teaching
Web Development, you're into MSDNAA territory and the cost there is stupidly cheap.
As far as OU goes, the Web server built in to Visual Web Developer (or VS.NET 2005) is perfectly adequate for a single user to learn on, you don't need a separate product. There just isn't a market for a standalone, totally stripped down, webserver any more.