This is the worst thing they could actually do because people will just run the Linux versions and there would be even less demand for anyone to bother with a FreeBSD version.
The alternative is that people will just run the Linux version on Linux. From my perspective, Linuxolator's job is to let me run commercial software that is released for Linux and unlikely to be released for FreeBSD; for example, whatever JNI garbage SuperMicro needed for their Java KVM; I had to keep an old Java 7 JRE around for that because they wouldn't update to fit into the security model of Java 8, so they're really unlikely to build for FreeBSD, especially in a competent way. Of course, if I had a choice, I would use a native build / something with at least source available, so I could build it natively; but if it's a sometimes run utility, I'm ok with something terribly hacky.
Unless FreeBSD has really, really strong differentiating capabilities that are in super high demand _already_, and insufficient Linux interop is a switching impediment, then focusing on Linux interop with otherwise low differentiation/demand seems likely to further lower FreeBSD differentiation & demand.
Were I them, I'd pick a couple really strong niches to try to dominate for a little while to drastically differentiate. Maybe in SDN or SSI clustering or something. Create the absolute best platform in that regard while still having familiar tools available for general purpose use cases... and _then_ work to trivialize the on-ramp to FreeBSD from Linux et. al.
FreeBSD needs to find some way to be a part of the meme, "Nobody ever got fired for going with..."
Don't worry, there are more than enough stumbling blocks in Linux emulation to ensure it would never be as convenient as native applications. For example, if you pass LD_LIBRARY_PATH with FreeBSD libraries to the Linux program it will predictably blow up in your face. Now, imagine running a shell script which calls FreeBSD and Linux executables.
Linuxulator is really a method of last resort and it always requires special care for each individual application.
Microsoft has the “embrace, extend, extinguish” mantra for a similar reason.
It tells developers that users will put up with the compatibility layer. Also setting up these compatibility layers has its own set of complications e.g. random things not working, sub-optimal performance etc.
The only people that have pulled it off has been Microsoft with WSL and there has been problems with that. I for a laugh setup basically a Xubuntu desktop and I had lots of odd errors being reported in the console.