Back in the days a friend visited and we talked about fork bombs. I fetched a spare FreeBSD box and ran the infamous shell script on it. System performance went down to a crawl, but I was still able to log in on a different virtual console and shut the machine down. Many systems back then would not have recovered from that.
Honestly it’s the same with out of memory issues too.
I just can think about my FreeBSD boxes less.
go find one of those 'notebook computer's that the dev team uses (probably a few-generations-old thinkpad or dell) and go see what the experience is like if you're unwilling or unable to put the work into getting your machine to run as you wish.
furthermore this isn't a solved issue for ANY OS on the fringe of the computer market. Go install the newest version of Windows on a Chuwi machine and see how many drivers are MIA and functionalities lost. Install Linux on an obscure VAIO or Toughbook and see what happens.
Regardless of the promises and hoped-for-wishes, EVERY os is hardware-centric, and they all have different orbits.
The BSDs just tend to make choices that give them one of the widest arrangement of choices in the 'will-it-run-on-this' category.
Kind of why I like macOS (works fine on any Mac, with about 7 years of support – though I wish it were 10, and x86 support may stop sooner) and Windows (runs on any x86 PC, games work without issue, years of updates and backward compatibility.)
But on a mainstream x86 laptop like a ThinkPad, I'd expect Ubuntu/Debian/etc. and FreeBSD to work well, for 10 years or more of updates. (And I'd expect most games to work on Linux with Proton.)
Do you know why/how BSD handles it better?