This could be the first half of a good article. It's a list of things the author cares about that variously: aren't (yet) possible, aren't a good idea, nobody cares enough to make happen, or (maybe) indicate a market force failure.
What would make this interesting (to me) is a discussion not that these features don't exist, but why.
They don't exist because your OS will only succeed if you're a successful monopoly (in at least a couple of market segments) with the market leverage to force adoption.
And if you're a monopolist with the market leverage to force adoption, you're very unlikely indeed to also be a leader in OS R&D.
A more fundamental problem is that this wish list is only really of interest to developers. The average user doesn't care about OS configurability or the kind of OS-level task programming that's being talked about here, and they're unlikely to use these features unless there's a super-simple UI to make them accessible.
Personally I'd love to see more debate about OS design, and more movement and improvement. IMO all the modern OS options pretty much suck in many ways.
But realistically I know you don't get much bottom-up invention in a market driven economy when niches have already been filled with okay-I-guess solutions.
You only get commoditisation and tinkering, and those are a long way from streamlined genius-level excellence.
What would make this interesting (to me) is a discussion not that these features don't exist, but why.