"Instead, the front page is largely a treatise on how Puppy Linux isn’t actually a “distribution” per se, and a technical description of what does and doesn’t count as a true Linux distribution."

I think the above quote from the article is why Puppy was used.

Why is the front page for Puppy full of technical nit-picking about terminology? Why isn't it focused on getting the user to productivity faster and easier.

Or maybe to follow on to your point, why doesn't the Puppy home page clarify that install to disk isn't a goal. That info on the home page would have certainly helped the author more than the definition of a distribution.