Microsoft was much more open then Apple over the years so why are they so apologetic?
I thought Open Source was initially aimed at generating one ever-improving version of Linux. Instead there are now a multitude of Linuxes. It was bad enough when there were two or three versions of Unix, but now there are dozens of boutique Linuxes. How is that an advancement?
The Open Source "community" is now overrun with SJWs. You aren't allowed to code unless you agree that transgendered men can compete against women in the Olympics. How is that a good thing?
Also, the Open Source community has always been a haven for Marxists who want everything to be free. It works well for the few evangelists who get to travel the world on someone else's dime, and for the true believers who are OK developing code just for fun. But what of those who want to make a living and get justly compensated?
Also, if no one gets paid for writing code, then the only way to make money is licensing. This leads to the creepy "you're only renting it" economy like where Tesla can deactivate a feature when the current owner sells the car to a new owner.
Open Source may have been a great idea, but it has devolved into an Open Sore.
Not at all. Open source software, free-as-in-speech software, was initiated by hobbyists in the mid-late 1970's with the advent of microprocessors and homebrew computers.
In the 1980's Richard Stallman took that idea and developed the GNU operating system (GNU == Gnu's Not Unix) because in those days Unix cost thousands of dollars and was proprietary.
In 1990 or so, Linux Torvalds wrote a kernel (called Linux) and grafted it onto the GNU operating system (which lacked, and still lacks, a viable kernel), and "Linux the operating system" was born.
Lots and lots of "open source" software was around two decades before the idea of "improving Linux" went mainstream.