I would say (which means: IMHO) that it's because the UI "is" the OS to 99%+ of the world. We developers, geeks, tinkerers, etc. know what an OS is. But to the end user, it's what they see on the screen. It's what they interact with. That is the abstraction we attempt for the vast majority of users. There is no need for most people know know how something is implemented. They just use it. The same applies for just about every other thing in existence. We use things. We consume things. We don't need to know how they are built to use them. Sure, some of us care, but most don't. Just talk to non-nerdy types and find out how ignorant (and I don't mean that in a pejorative way) they are when it comes to technology. Just as in Android and iOS. Those users don't care about a Linux kernel with a Dalvik VM vs. a BSD microkernel running applications compiled mainly in the Objective-C language. They care about cost, public image, features etc..
I'm just throwing this out there for thought. But, I don't hear a whole lot of us talking about who's microwave oven's firmware is implemented better. It just doesn't matter to the user, as long as it works. It is usually the style and ease of use from an interface standpoint. Same for cars to most people. They don't care about how the technology under the hood works. If they get the gas mileage, style, price, automatic or manual etc. they want, then that is what they buy.
So, to most people a Car is the Make and model. A computer is the UI and perhaps the software available for it. That's all.
Yes, I agree, and it is part of the reason why I am amused. It's so cute the way they have no idea what most of that means.
I mean, yesterday I learned that my father had bought a laptop with Windows 8 from a Japanese person, but had someone install Windows 7 afterwards because Win8 was in Japanese. He also bought a new keyboard because neither he or the person who installed the 'new' OS knew how to type "áéíóú" etc on the Japanese keyboard (yes, I configured the keyboard layout for him yesterday).
Now, be honest and tell me: is it not amusing to think this is the kind of people who are comparing operating systems? Is it not even more amusing to think that people who write blog posts about it should know better?
But we are used to the DE being de-coupled from the OS, and being able to change it. For Windows and Mac the DE is a 'selling point', for Linux it isn't because it can be changed any which way you want. I mean, in Ubuntu it's trivial to install 10 different DEs and switch every time you log in...
So true. Now that I've used Linux for awhile I could never go back. Having so much software available so easily and quickly, convenient package managers that manage dependencies, automatically update, etc... is fantastic.
I'm just throwing this out there for thought. But, I don't hear a whole lot of us talking about who's microwave oven's firmware is implemented better. It just doesn't matter to the user, as long as it works. It is usually the style and ease of use from an interface standpoint. Same for cars to most people. They don't care about how the technology under the hood works. If they get the gas mileage, style, price, automatic or manual etc. they want, then that is what they buy.
So, to most people a Car is the Make and model. A computer is the UI and perhaps the software available for it. That's all.