Wow your jealous prevails
First off, in the interest of full disclosure... I am a security architect for a Fortune 100. I work with various systems daily, including Windows, Linux, HP-UX, Solaris, AIX and OSX. Some I like, some I like more than others... but none I really dislike. They all have their advantages and disadvantages, but that's not the point of this discussion.
I find your statements to be immature and factually incorrect. I wonder how you made it to be a senior at a top rated university making such false statements in essays you've written, but I digress...
Your statement of 'While the foundation of the operating system is Darwin, a BSD-based kernel, the core of the operating system is NeXT; just ask all the hardcore Unix users who have tried to change their OS X settings using configuration files in /etc' is correct, HOWEVER you can change within OSX whether to use the NeXT-commands or /etc config files.
Secondly, you statement 'Consider, too, that any Unix users poking around an OS X box will be surprised to find a "Unix" with no gcc. Or gdb. Original versions didn't even have bash' is completely invalid. Solaris, HP-UX, and AIX all do not come with gcc or gdb. So what part of gcc or gdb classifies a system as UNIX? If I remember correctly, the 'g' stands for GNU which stands for 'GNU IS NOT UNIX'. So how can you say that the absense of NOT UNIX utilities makes a system UNIX?
Thirdly, 'And Unix's beloved fortune, who dutifully greets us upon login, is missing.'. Fortune was a program written in order to test out the first btree implementation. It's a game, not a component of UNIX. Also, note again, fortune does not come with Solaris, HP-UX, nor AIX.
Fourthly, 'Speaking of xterm, where is X? You know, that often-maligned client/server hardware-independent platform MIT came up with to provide GUI services for *nix' is wrong. X is not a GUI, but X is a client-server architecture designed for distributed computing. The GUI part of it was just there because there was nothing available at the time. Again, why does X make UNIX?
Fifthly, 'you have to find yourself an X server for Mac OS X, which Apple doesn't even want to acknowledge exists', to the contrary, available from Apple's download site, xtools 1.2 (http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/unix_open_source/xtools.html) which is an X server for OSX.
Sixthly, 'A few of O'Reilly's testimonies do give some concrete examples of user problems they had: "I refuse to spend weekends and late nights fiddling, Linux-hacker-style, with the scripts and codes and config files...". This sentiment reinforces that these users shouldn't have been using Linux in the first place.'; referring to my background,it's not that I shouldn't be using Linux, in fact, I used Linux as a desktop OS for several years WITHOUT X, that's right, console only, and did my time writing scripts, hacking config files, and re-installing. The problem is not that I don't know how to do these things, it's that I don't want to have to do these things. You may be a college student with infinite time on your hands, letting your mommy and daddy pay your way through life, but some of us have jobs and want things to work NOW and not after 80 hours of hacking.
Seventhly (if such a thing exists), 'But Linux was never meant to be a sports car; I like to think of my Linux desktop more as an expandable VW bus towing a boat behind it and an SUV behind that.'; in other words you acknowledge that Linux is slow and unable to perform under heavy loads? Give me a break... even I know that Linux's main design is to be quick and responsive, and the various benchmarks constantly comparing Linux w/ Apache and Windows IIS is the proof of this.
Your rant is just that, a rant. You have no valid facts, and the facts you do have are illegitimate ones. You insult the users of OSX, saying they were incapable of using Linux. Please go back and review your facts before making any more ignorant statements.