a Mac really doesn’t cost much more than an equivalent Windows machine anymore

You’re talking hardware in a software conversation. I also think that you meant to head in the OS department (OS X costs something but it isn’t much; Linux is generally free), but even that’d be inappropriate. The user must consider the total cost of ownership for each platform. With that in mind, Linux is by far the more economical. There is a case to be made for it driving people insane, of course.

But the same can be said of Windows or OS X. =P

Well, I don’t technically pay for mine since work does, so for me personally its kind of a moot point, but even assuming we go with that line of argument a Mac really doesn’t cost much more than an equivalent Windows machine anymore. The only Apple machine that that argument works for is the Mac Pro, which is a bit overpriced, yes, but it’s marketed to high-end shops anyway, not your average Joe. You could build your own PC and save some cash, but by the time you buy all the components and software that would make that machine the equivalent of a Mac the margins aren’t what some like to think. Do you pay a premium for a Mac? Yes, but you also pay a premium for an Audi or a Porsche. Some people feel the premium is worth the gain.

Also, speaking just in terms of the cost of the OS, Windows Vista Home Basic (the full version) currently retails at $170.00 US. OS X Leopard (there’s only one version, since Apple doesn’t artificially stratify it’s OS sales) is $113.00 US. I’d say I pay out my ass about a third less when I buy OS X.

"The whole “just works” mantra is all fine and dandy until you deviate from the script, at which point you’re pretty much in the same point as Linux."

I’m not sure I follow. What situations do you have in mind where deviating from the script renders the "just works" mantra null and void? I manage a network of about 70 Macs and while I experience some frustrations and times when things don’t magically "just work" a solution is usually not far off.

If I get in a tight spot and need those ultra-specific Unix command-line tools that are developed for use in Linux, chances are someone has ported it to be able to run under OS X, since the underlying architectures are not that dissimilar. Best of both worlds.

I agree with the gist of your assessment of Linux; Linus has even characterized it in such a fashion; i.e. people often work only on what matters to them, and while there may exist higher-level planning in the kernel, or in the umbrella of a desktop environment, the software eco-system itself varies pretty widely.

I don’t agree with your conclusion that OS X is somehow the answer to these problems. The whole “just works” mantra is all fine and dandy until you deviate from the script, at which point you’re pretty much in the same point as Linux. But at least with Linux you aren’t shelling out good money for an inferior desktop experience.

You would think that with an open system where people can come together and figure things out without threat of money and market share looming over their heads they could come up with consistent standardized ways of doing things, but really it’s just the opposite. Linux is like a redneck’s trailer home. Some of it is put together pretty solid, because it was done at the beginning, and by someone who had a plan. Then Cletus said, "ya know whut, I need a place to sit when I’m outside drinkin’ beer! So he cobbled together a porch to put his old ratty couch on. Then his sister/wife said, "well, shyoot, why don’t we add ourselves a nice barbeque attatchment here too! and a toilet so we don’t have to go inside!".

Pretty soon you’ve got so many add-on projects that were done by people who just wanted to get their specific problem solved with no regard to how well it functioned or how well it integrated with the rest of the environment. Linux has too many rusty cars on blocks sitting in its front yard.

Hence why I like Mac OS X. You have the Unix backend with a nice shiny frontend, and usability that will make even the frostiest of maidens weak in the knees. It’s what Linux would be if people were paid well to make it.

Just spent the weekend ripping some old albums to FLAC, and had to use SoundJuicer—which isn’t even called "SoundJuicer" anymore, yet inexplicably retains the sharp-looking logo—and was rather depressed about it.

The Amarok team broke down and admitted for Summer of Code that adding ripping support might be a good idea:

Amarok has never really felt a need for good CD ripping support. We always felt there were better programs suited for this task. This hasn’t stopped folks from finding ways to use Amarok to rip their CDs though. ;)

We’ll see whether anything worthwhile comes of it. Thanks for the rec!