One big difference is OpenBSD is easier.
For example, I installed FreeBSD on an old laptop and had to fiddle with building Xorg to get a GUI. Same laptop on OpenBSD just worked after running the installer.
For example, I installed FreeBSD on an old laptop and had to fiddle with building Xorg to get a GUI. Same laptop on OpenBSD just worked after running the installer.
Ports tree in general is a great way to install third-party software, but not necessarily for Xorg.
You still install KDE or GNOME through ports/packages on both systems, but X being more tightly integrated with the base system has benefits in reducing complexity for the rest of the components.
For Arch users of KDE Plasma and applications, are essential packages ever missing? <https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/KDE#Installation>
From https://gist.github.com/grahamperrin/307b8cdef5d4dcd30f5fdc4... for FreeBSD:
> It's not unusual for a Tier 1 platform to have no package for a wanted desktop environment. Two platforms are at this tier: …
For example, kde for FreeBSD 15.0-CURRENT was recently missing for a few days for AMD64; is still missing for aarch64 (64-bit ARMv8).
This is not to criticise the maintainers of packages or repos. I do understand the constraints.
The absence of an essential meta package is, inescapably, an impedance when aiming to test installers and upgrades, especially with pkgbase.