I think you are missing the thrust of Linus' point.
"... it's where everybody _has_ to write"
There is nothing wrong with an 'authoritative' repository to which everyone pushes. What is a problem for Linus, and many others, is when the authoritative repository is the _only_ repository and doing work locally or sharing work between users is impossible to do using the VCS tools and people resort to passing patches.
"It is meant for small teams who are adopting Git for the first time, and want to get started quickly with a familiar setup before exploring Git's many new possibilities."
"Work will proceed broadly as with any centralised VCS..."
Those two sentences had led me to believe that the article was telling you to use git the same way you would use a VCS tool. Which Linus would be opposed to. The whole point is that git allows you to change your behavior (work on branches for weeks at a time before checking back in, not have to be afraid of screwing up the repository with a small commit, etc.). If it doesn't change your behavior, there's not much point.
Of course, I think the article is more of a gateway introduction to git, to introduce you to it in a non-threatening way hoping it will change your behavior later. Linus just doesn't have much patience for that sort of thing. He will call you stupid and ugly for not doing it his way.
"So, I'm not saying, I am not going to force you to switch over to decentralized, I'm just going to call you ugly and stupid. That's the deal." - Linus
"... it's where everybody _has_ to write"
There is nothing wrong with an 'authoritative' repository to which everyone pushes. What is a problem for Linus, and many others, is when the authoritative repository is the _only_ repository and doing work locally or sharing work between users is impossible to do using the VCS tools and people resort to passing patches.