I disagree. Languagelog (an eminent source of linguistic pedantry) is saying exactly what mkl is saying. His quote is in-context, I don't know what more else to say.
Can you elaborate on your theory to the contrary, Stavros?
> However, it would be different for less: less refers to quantity or amount among things that are measured and to number among things that are counted.
(emphasis mine)
This means that, as the article goes on to detail, you say "we have fewer choices" but "we have less than 5 choices". In the article's tables, it compares "less <choices> than N" to "fewer <choices> than N", not just "less/fewer <choices>".
It's not saying that fewer is correct anywhere. It's saying that "5 items or fewer" sounds stilted. Therefore, the OP's "less choices" is wrong by any standard.
Actually, that's a widespread misconception. See here, for example: http://itre.cis.upenn.edu/~myl/languagelog/archives/003775.h...
(edit: tl;dr: "less has been used of countables since the time of King Alfred the Great", i.e. since before English existed)
That's a linguist's take on it - you can find many more by googling [fewer less languagelog] or similar.