Ampere's primary focus is running lots of simple tasks concurrently, at relatively low power, with lots of I/O. So, many tens to hundreds of cores, not too fast, at lower power draw than amd64, with lots of PCIe lanes for storage and network.
Apple's primary focus is user experience and power efficiency. That's why you'll find a handful of fast performance cores and low power efficiency cores, along with graphics acceleration to drive high resolution displays.
"first principles" and "from scratch" are predictable failure modes... he had very good reason to pursue a Python-like language given the circumstances and objectives
(It feels very grumpy-old-man to complain about "low effort", but I think it's more culturally relevant than ever before...)
... not investigating your field is a massive low effort failure mode. You don't have to know your field, but you have to investigate it, appreciate it, draw upon it... even, or perhaps especially, if you're standing in opposition to it.
(This is also why "first principles" twits like Elon are so annoying...)
That's a less efficient protocol than 9pfs and virtiofs, even if you subtract the encryption.
An example of improving efficiency: virtiofs has a relatively recent feature to map pages from host memory directly into guest memory, but that's a lot of risky acrobatics if your priorities are reliability and isolation...
... but it's not supported by Virtualization Framework's built-in virtiofs "folder sharing". (sad face)
... but someone could build it on top of the new macos 27+ custom virtio device support. (intrigued face)
These are all security boundaries of a kind, some more effective than others, balancing priorities according to threat model. Running every app on your phone in a hardware virtual machine would be... an expensive choice.
Different threat models. Your typical Android device (and Linux server for that matter, at home or at scale) is not usually running security-sensitive general workloads for multiple tenants in the same OS instance. :-)
Containers (those popularised on Linux by Docker) are built on Linux primitives like cgroups and namespaces, so they're running directly on the same kernel, same VFS, often the same FS, etc. Their isolation properties rely on (a) all those Linux features working as expected, and (b) the container runtime setting them up properly.
Depending on your threat model, that's fine, but a lot of people (including me) will say that containers are not a security mechanism.
But macOS requires[1] virtualisation for containers anyway; the security is just a bonus.
You can run amd64 binaries inside an aarch64 Linux virtual machine. Although they're not supporting Rosetta for macOS apps from macOS 27, the Rosetta support in Virtualization Framework will remain.
A few things contributed to its demise: less industry money sloshing around for travel and sponsorships, a growing sense that "Linux" didn't represent the entire community, and a pandemic.
Which left "Everything Open" launching weaker in every sense.
But I don't think Linux or Open Source feel sufficiently radical or inspiring to sustain that kind of community-building (local or global) these days... maybe a "Fuck AI" tech conference. :-D