What I dislike about these sorts of articles is that they try to pretend as if *BSDs weren't heavily dependent on the wider FLOSS community, which is mostly Linux-based.

They instead focus on minuscule differences, which you could maybe argue are a bit better from a design perspective, (the default file system layout for example), but in practical terms matter little.

On the other hand, they don't mention the fact that the reason OpenBSD is so "secure", is because their marketing focuses on the default install, which has almost nothing.

So the moment you install the minimum amount of packages to get your work done, the "only two remote holes" thing no longer holds.

When you point out the practically abyssal modern laptop support in FreeBSD, they just shrug because "macOS's also BSD".

Then there's the whole smugness towards Linux as if they weren't dependent on GCC for years, as if GNOME/KDE etc. wasn't a primarily Linux effort and as if ZFS was somehow their invention.

They'll sing about BSD Jails and how Docker is strictly inferior, (also ignoring LXC), while not having any even remotely equivalent frontend for BSD Jails.

They'd laugh at the systemd debates, while talking openly about maybe them doing something similar.

Now Linux also heavily depends on some parts of BSD, but you'd see hardly anybody thrashing OpenSSH, just because it's BSD.

It's just not a community I want to be a part of, that's before I get into the whole BSD vs GPL debate, but I do understand that the appeal is there for some and that's perfectly fine.