I like that you try to qualify it with "not that React invented it" while simultaneously using a condescending tone. Although props are in order for so effectively sounding condescending with only text.
That said, it's only "basically React" in the sense that they both use a Virtual Dom. The implementation is unlikely to be as similar and the syntax is very different.
Your analogy is flawed in the same way that calling Linux "basically BSD" (or vice versa) is wrong simply because they both use a Unix-like kernel.
Your analogy is off. BSD always had a Unix-like kernel. AngularJS 1.x doesn't have a virtual DOM. They chose a different architecture for AngularJS 2.x which means the previous architecture wasn't that good despite all the praise.
They didn't "choose" a different architecture. The Virtual DOM wasn't an option when Angular 1.x started development. Dirty checking was "The Way".
The previous architecture was excellent for its time. The initial release of Angular 1.x was 6 years ago. The praise was well-deserved because dirty checking was fast and efficient.
React came about 4 years later and used an architecture that no one else had ever used. It was faster and more efficient. Now frameworks are converging to the new faster and more efficient way.
It seems like you consider it a personal affront that Angular is changing with the times. You seem to forget that exchanging is what makes these frameworks great (CSSAnimationGroup is, in fact, a replica of ng-animate).
That said, it's only "basically React" in the sense that they both use a Virtual Dom. The implementation is unlikely to be as similar and the syntax is very different.
Your analogy is flawed in the same way that calling Linux "basically BSD" (or vice versa) is wrong simply because they both use a Unix-like kernel.