As a small user I find it hard to find a use case where I’d want a bsd for some reason. I even installed ghostbsd in a vm to try it but it seemed very similar to linux so I didn’t understand what’s the upside?
IME the integration with FreeBSD and ZFS just works better than BTRFS and linux distors, and I've read far too many reports about data loss with BTRFS to trust it.
But I definitely believe that everything you can do on FreeBSD, you can also do on Linux. For me it's the complete package though that comes with FreeBSD, and everything being documented in the man pages and the handbook.
Sure, but ZFS is much better integrated into FreeBSD. It supports ZFS on root with boot environments out of the box.
And when running a Samba server, it's helpful that FreeBSD supports NFSv4 ACLs when sitting between ZFS and SMB clients; on Linux, Samba has to hack around the lack of NFSv4 ACL support by stashing them in xattrs.
You can arguably get even better ZFS and SMB integration with an Illumos distribution, but for me FreeBSD hits the sweet spot between being nice to use and having the programs I need in its package library.
But on Linux you need to load external modules. Before upgrading or changing kernels you need to check if ZFS supports it. Specially bad in rolling distros.
A small thing, but the mechanistic approach to bundling packages into bigger meta state, is (in my personal opinion) better than the somewhat ad-hoc approach to both writing and including things in an apt/dpkg.
If the product is python, thats what it is. there is no python-additonal-headers or python-dev or bundle-which-happens-to-be-python-but-how-would-you-know.
There is python, and there are meta-ports which explicitly 'call' the python port.
The most notable example being X11. Its sub-parts are all very rational. fonts are fonts. libs are libs. drm is drm. drivers are drivers.
(yes, there is the port/pkg confusion. thats a bit annoying.)
