It might make sense on mobile since features and abilities are changing rapidly. For desktop, I'd take stability over new features yearly.
I'm glad Apple chose to develop a different OS for each class of device, unlike say, Microsoft's insistence on the one-size-fits-all approach — it's what made the iPhone popular in the first place.
This isn't what an OS is. It is about 10 levels of abstraction below this. It handles managing virtual memory, IO, networking, process switching, processor interrupts, threading. All the low level nitty-gritty hardware details you need to worry.
These tasks are fairly generic this is why Linux can run on Smart Phones, Laptops, PC's, Watches, and Super Computers.
What you are describing is called a "kernel", which is one important part of an OS. No one (or almost no one) uses "OS" as a synonym for "kernel".
Linux is a kernel. Desktop Linux (Ubuntu or whatever) is not the same OS as Android.
> This isn't what an OS is. It is about 10 levels of abstraction below this. It handles managing virtual memory, IO, networking, process switching, processor interrupts, threading. All the low level nitty-gritty hardware details you need to worry.
> These tasks are fairly generic this is why Linux can run on Smart Phones, Laptops, PC's, Watches, and Super Computers.
You're talking about the kernel Linux, not about an operating system. An example of an operating system is GNU/Linux, which includes much more than just a kernel.
Why do people wait for things to go wrong then make blanket statements about a "better way"?