I still don’t follow that. If engineering still exists the philosophies still exist and the interview mentions what could be interpreted as the forking moment in the 1960s. By which time I doubt a subtle emphasis shift like the one suggested here would prevent general purpose computing from continuing.

Where's the line? Is my point. How do you build an operating system when you're starting from "What specific task does my end user want to complete for this bit of software?" You never build general capabilities; only specific point solutions.

In other words: this article was written on a computer built in our universe. In their universe they'd be stuck on electric typewriters.

Even an OS isn’t a general solution. Take ChromeOS versus the OS underlying a PS5.

Also what specific things does an OS let you do. Think about the end user from that perspective. What do they want from an OS? It’s hopefully quickly apparent that you can consider these things in the way the article suggests. It’s just the emphasis is slightly different.

I certainly think that emphasis difference would result in different OS designs but by no means would you be stuck with electric typewriters. That feels like a very uncharitable reading.

I think you're being charitable enough to read this universe's methods into that one, which aren't compatible (and this incompatibility provides the contrast).

For example:

I still feel like this way of thinking can work only up to a certain point. Don't you need to get to a more precise problem definition at a lower, more technical level?

Not really, no. When you're solving a problem, even as you get to a more technical level, you always keep in mind why you are solving it. I noticed that software engineers in your universe often ignore this. You fixate on some technical solution and then completely forget what is the context in which you're building it.

As you can see, this isn't the sort of mentality that gets you a general purpose tool. You might get JPEG, but you won't get ZIP.