> - It provides an easy, consistant and comfortable user interface.

The last, and to an extent the first, are opinion.  (I, for example,
don't find it comfortable, and find it easy only when I want to do
things it's anticipated.)

Of course, for something that amounts to "user comfort", user opinion
is a perfectly valid reason to pick one thing over another.  I'm just
pointing out that it *is* opinion, in no sense objective.  (Consistency
is comparatively objective; I'm not arguing with that part.)

> - It includes most of those plague-ins and add-ons (natively, no
>   binary emulation required) that you unfortunately need to use the
>   Internet these days.

I guess I must not be using the Internet, then, since I'm not using any
binary-only plug-ins or add-ons on my (NetBSD) boxen.

Leaves me wondering what it is I _am_ using, though.

Perhaps you're confusing "use the Internet" with "use the Internet for
the sorts of things *I* want to use it for"?

> - You can get applications like Roxio Toast Titanium or Apple's iLife
>   06 which makes editing a video file or turning it into a DVD very
>   easy.

Again, if that's what you want to do, that's a perfectly valid reasons.
If not, it's totally irrelevant.

> - It supports 3D accelerated graphics very well.  I can play a
>   computer game without even having to [...]

Why does everything think "computer games" means "3D graphics"?  I play
computer games regularly, without using any 3D at all.

Again, if you want to play games that do, this is a perfectly valid
reason.  If not, it's irrelevant.

These seem to be amounting to "it's better for what I want to do".
Now, to an extent I think that's your point, in context.  But you're
stating a lot of these as though they're objective reasons for other
people to prefer MacOSX over NetBSD, which is true only to the extent
they share your preferences and desires.

> Do I think that Mac OS X is better than NetBSD?

Whenever I see anyone talking about whether A is better than B, my
first reaction is to ask "for what?".  NetBSD is far better for what I
want to do, which is in large part why it's what I'm running.  I have a
friend for whom MacOSX is unquestionably better - and, not surprisngly,
that's what he's running.

>      Mac OS X is a BSD after all.

It is?  I thought the kernel was Mach, and BSD came into it only in
that the parts of userland that came from the Unix world came
principally from the BSDs.

I'm not sure whether I think that's enough to call it a BSD.

/~\ The ASCII				der Mouse
\ / Ribbon Campaign
 X  Against HTML	       mouse@rodents.montreal.qc.ca
/ \ Email!	     7D C8 61 52 5D E7 2D 39  4E F1 31 3E E8 B3 27 4B