And they have a somewhat continuous team working on that OS since before Linux was a word. Same with Microsoft. Is it really relevant to any other company?
Apple haven’t been working on iOS longer than Linux has been around. It’s true that iOS is based on macOS which is based on NEXT (of various capitalisations), FreeBSD and a few other platforms. But Apples direct involvement starts at macOS and there’s very little FreeBSD/NEXT/etc in iOS compared to original code. Likewise you could argue that “Linux” predates Linux if you include the GNU user land and start tracing things backwards that way (I’m assuming “Linux” in the context of this discussion is GNU/Linux because it wouldn’t be fair to compare a kernel to a full desktop or mobile OS).
Ultimately I don’t think either arguments are particularly useful as all they demonstrate is that good technology is an evolutionary process of stands on the shoulders of other pieces of good technology.
I'm fond of the jocular statement that NeXT acquired Apple for -$429 million dollars.
Steve Jobs went from CEO of NeXT to CEO of Apple, and promptly started a project to scrap the existing "System" series of Macintosh operating systems in favor of a Unix derived from NeXTSTEP.
Sure, I didn't mean Linux isn't standing on the (partially the same) shoulders. What I meant is macOS/iOS and Windows teams are unique in shipping general-purpose OSs AND doing so and accreting code and expertise tied to that code since ancient times when "try and paper over the complexities of linux" wasn't an option at all.
Whether it’s 10 years, 20 years or 30. I don’t think it makes much difference after 10 in terms of the level of relevant expertise you’d expect. Particularly when you factor in staff leaving, getting promoted, etc and new engineers joining. Where Linux differs isn’t it’s age but rather it’s development model being decentralised. FreeBSD might be a more comparable example given the context you’re describing.
