But then also makes a few assumptions that might prove to be true or not. That is to say : we don’t know.
The people who I quote in the past also had a delineated idea of what the future might entail, but it’s impossible to look very far ahead.
The OP argumentation might be incomplete, but is at least solid argument for why we won't need a quantum operating system.
If you believe there is or could be a need for a quantum operating system, _explain why_. If you don't know, that's ok.
But arguing that "The OP argument cannot be correct because other people made incorrect predictions about other stuff in the past" is pointless and useless.
Maybe some application of quantum computing appears in the future that requires a quantum operating system, or maybe there is one such application that already exists today and we don't know about. I don't know of any, and like the OP I also think of Quantum Computers as "accelerators" (like GPUs, FPGAs, Xeon Phis, ...) for certain class of problems.
- they aren't updating the prior with new information, they're just pointing it out as sufficient on its own
Using the two points above anyone can make a bad argument about anything - just pick the data points that fit your narrative, state that narrative as a conclusion and don't update it when presented with other facts.