I think I mentioned OS X's historic links to
BSD, via
NEXTSTEP, on a different thread. Apple can take no credit for the underlying UNIX architecture, shells and core utilities.
Apple didn't write
bash, and don't control it - it's Open Source software. It's not the only shell, but it is the most common one, on Linux systems too. The choice of shell is only really important if you do shell scripting: if you're just launching programs, you may as well use the 30-y.o.
sh.
You can even get a
bash environment for Windows, if you want it - see
Cygwin. Microsoft haven't been standing still, either, they've developed
PowerShell, which is
arguably more powerful than
bash for e.g. text processing. I can see how Microsoft could be accused of "borrowing" bits of the OS X look for Vista, e.g. the sidebar. If so, they haven't done themselves any favours: Vista is also a bit pukey-looking in my estimation.
As I said before - I think people should pick the best tool for the job, and that could well be a Mac. e.g. if I was a working musician who needed something to use on stage. It's a lot of money, though, so I'd recommend the original poster keeps his eyes open, and not be swayed by Apple's expert marketing. Claims that a Mac has any
inherent superiority don't hold any water with me, and I'm especially put off by the patronising attitude that some Mac users have, as if I'm not "enlightened" because I haven't joined their cult. I like the idea of a UNIX-based system, but I have that already, on industry standard hardware, at no software cost: Linux. I'm not paying hundreds extra for a slightly fancier-looking GUI - which is really all that Apple is offering
me. Your mileage may vary.
