It a matter of preferences. Linux is hard to beat, but so is macOS. OpenBSD is cool in its own little ways. For me it's the consistency and ever present documentation. FreeBSD fans will say: "FreeBSD has a the handbook, and it consistent", but it is not the same, it's not like OpenBSD. In terms of consistent feel (command line, documentation and system configuration) FreeBSD feels very much like someone made an effort, OpenBSD feels like they succeeded.
While OpenBSD can be a great desktop, even if it does require at little more tweaking than I care for. It's almost there, like an older version of Slackware.
For me personally, it's macOS desktops and OpenBSD servers, if possible.
So one can weigh security, clean organization & good documentation, vs. some convenience if needed features are missing (bluetooth is available sometimes via USB, I think I read in a mailing list, but no NFS, and some other things).
That stat is a bit meaningless, simply because most other OSes ship a default install that tries to do much more than OpenBSD does by default. They've downplayed it a lot over the years.
> vs. some convenience if needed features are missing
That "some", for everyday application developers, is surprisingly big. Last time I tried, anything related to Rust was a nope. Tons of tools just fail to compile (because "GNU is bad" or something). It reminded me of late-90s Linux, except there the community would jump at the chance to fix issues - whereas OpenBSD folks tend to just shrug (or even berate you).
Tons of tools fail to compile? My experience about lacking features feels different from what you describe. There are over 10k precompiled packages available, meeting my needs nicely. For example, I use rustc and cargo on obsd without trouble, just a simple install, though I think rustup is absent. I wonder if the rust project is still planning to integrate rustup into cargo sometime though, and how that is going.
Gobble Gobble :PppPPPpppPP
System upgrades are also basically atomic for this reason, since user-installed packages and applications are separated from the system level. The base system itself is versioned as a whole.
A true UNIX is hard to beat. I grew up with macOS and was devastated when my Mac broke & couldn't afford a new one. Been despising Windows for the past ~1.5 years. OpenBSD is nothing like macOS, but it is still UNIX.
Doesn't Nvidia make first-party drivers for OpenBSD? And they're more likely to work since "OpenBSD" is far more specific than "Linux"?
I think KISS Linux is my favorite in terms of control, but it gives me so much control that I was never able to get it working. Its build system is theoretically awesome, but in practice maintaining my own distribution is less fun than it sounds.
Alpine is my favorite in terms of runtime stability since it essentially reimages itself into a tmpfs every boot and packages are completely atomic. But the fact that everything is statically linked means it's a pain to get anything working, and I haven't yet found anything that fills both niches. (I have not tried Silverblue or NixOS yet)
Arch is my favorite in terms of customization because basically everything has an AUR package these days, including the old traditional window managers (i.e. blackbox) that make for a utilitarian UNIX, my favorite kind. (With Wayland that all goes away, which is why I despise Wayland.)
Ubuntu is far too "stable" for my needs, and I commonly find that the newest release is already years out of date on packages. You basically need Linuxbrew to do any sort of bleeding-edge development on an Ubuntu machine.
I'm open to trying more, of course.
I use OBSD on _ALL_ of my edge devices. I use FBSD on all of my internal servers.
I have used OBSD as a desktop PC. I currently use FBSD as my desktop PC.
You can use OBSD and still get a full GUI with a web browser. But (for example) you need to attend ZOOM meetings with a working webcam, and interact with MS Teams whiteboards; you are going to get frustrated.
So you need to be honest with yourself about what exactly you want to do.