Linux sucks because it works poorly with the cheapest, most throwaway hardware you could find? If you're an adult and willing to buy a computer that works out of the box, order a laptop from Zareason, or someone else who will pick working hardware and install Linux for you.
I think the real point here is that each choice has an associated cost. With Linux, it's the extra time necessary to do this sort of research and configuration. You can reduce the headaches associated, but the Linux community doesn't always make that as clear as possible to the customer.
With Apple, instead of the extra time/thought, it's a bit more money to make the purchase. It also doesn't hurt having a single entity doing most of the communication and making sure the customer is happy, by making choices/support relatively simple.
The problem here is that they aren't easy costs to compare, since they are listed in different resources. I think this is why a lot of Apple users say things like "You just need to use it.", since quantifying all the little user experience gains doesn't lend it self well to a comparison of technical specs.
Seriously why is this downmodded and why is the parent popular, comparing a 200$ netbook not designed for linux to the enormously overpriced hardware in a macbook specifically designed for OS X is supposed to be some kind of valid comparison?
I down voted your comment because you missed the point entirely. I did not buy a netbook, it was a laptop; I also didn't compare one to the other, I was relating personal experiences that lead up to my choosing OS X. I did state that I feel Linux is not desktop ready, but that sentiment comes from - not only my experience - but the experience of many.
Matter of fact, I have my girlfriend's netbook (this one was "designed" for GNU/Linux) running GNU/Linux; she hates it. Why? Because when she closes the lid it shuts down. When the battery is about dead, it just kills power, it doesn't gracefully sleep (or even warn her). There are countless other complaints that are completely valid.
That is why GNU/Linux is not ready for the desktop. Sure, I could cope with those issues, but I work in the command line every day and I'm also a programmer.
I will defend GNU/Linux any day for its philosophy, culture, software, and massive influence; but I will not defend it as a desktop operating system, it simply isn't refined enough for that.
The examples you give are more evidence of poor suppliers, setting ubuntu to not shut down when you close the lid is as easy as power preferences -> what to do when you close the lid, ditto for what to do on low power conditions.
Not rocket science.
My girlfriend uses Ubuntu and she's totally fine with it, why? Because I set it up for her and everything "just works", taking the role that would otherwise be taken by the system integrators at Apple.
It's not the Linux core system that's broken, it's the dodgy culture built around rapid and poor attention to detail at the low end of the computer market, and this is what you're expressly comparing Apple's high end offering to.
This is poorly framed and trollish. I never said Linux sucks; I also conceded the fact that my choice in hardware was a poor one and surely contributed to my negative experience.
