> It may not look like it now, but I think Linux is not viable long-term as a desktop OS.

This is a ridiculous claim to make without giving any explanation or justification, especially when you go on to state that FreeBSD is the way to go.

> "FreeBSD also needs an OS-level graphics/window API just like Windows"

Do you realize how many thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands of hours have been put into this effort over the years? Maybe once AI is at a point where we can just tell an agent to build it we'll be able to get that done, but as of right now this is Fantasyland.

> Linux is still trying to pretend like its the 60s where text was the only way to interact with a computer. Graphics is integral to all mobile and desktop computing and should be part of the operating system.

This is also a silly thing to say. At this point you can do almost anything with a GUI on modern Linux desktops. If you're getting at the underlying modularization of Linux distributions, that is a potentially interesting technical argument, but it's just an implementation detail. The average end user is just going to take a packaged Linux distribution and use that, and that has never been easier and has never worked better than it does now. Fedora in particular is remarkably well integrated and feels like a cohesive system.

I have absolutely nothing against FreeBSD, and in fact I really like FreeBSD. But as an end user system, it is absolutely nowhere usable for even many technical people with hardware that is less than 5 years old, let alone less technical people that just want to run a game.

FreeBSD was not chosen as the basis for those consoles because FreeBSD is superior, it was primarily chosen because it's license allowed them to keep everything super locked up and proprietary, whereas the GPL license on Linux would have forced them to release their changes, which obviously they do not want to do.

What is it about Linux that leads you to believe that?

> There should probably be an effort to specifically make FreeBSD a gaming-ready OS

This will only happen for consoles as it is the case already, due to the driver issue.

It's one thing to create a specialized Linux distribution, it's another thing to try to support thousands of SKUs found in common desktops, roll your own modern WiFi stack, etc.

> FreeBSD also needs an OS-level graphics/window API just like Windows. Linux is still trying to pretend like its the 60s where text was the only way to interact with a computer.

You have no idea what you're talking about. Linux has DRM and Mesa. You can do hardware accelerated rendering in a TTY with next to no dependencies if you feel the need for whatever reason.

Unless your objection is the lack of a "blessed" display server or GUI toolkit or something? But I don't think anyone wants that sort of monoculture. Perhaps the systemd folks will take you up on it if you file a feature request?

Most gaming takes place on devices other than desktops.

None of this is really related to the issue though. You could fix this by uprooting all of your software and switching to another OS... or with Bubblewrap and a Steam Flatpak. Containerization was always the future of UNIX-like gaming, even "native" Steam installations use it with pressure-vessel. Same goes for Linuxulator on FreeBSD.

FreeBSD is an excellent example of how much development you can expect from a license that allows full commercial exploitation of it's codebase. You will sooner see Sony sell $600 PS3s than you will have a graphical installer or hardware-accelerated Chromium. If Linux is running the race with a bum leg, BSD is drafting it's will in the hospital bed.

> It may not look like it now, but I think Linux is not viable long-term as a desktop OS.

I'm using Linux on the desktop since the early Slackware days, in the nineties.

The one thing that changed since then is that Linux now powers 500 of the world's Top 500 supercomputers and that's it. Wait, no, I forgot... It powers as well as billions if not tens of billions of phones, routers, servers, TVs, etc. It's in space, in cars, at sea, underground, etc.

It's typically also powering OCI containers, containers host, VMs, Kubernetes (even Talos is still Linux), etc.

Now of course the one thing that hasn't changed is the "This year is the year of Linux on the desktop" joke. But somehow, in the face of billions of devices running Linux, that joke doesn't have the same punch to it anymore.

What makes you think that an OS that basically now powers the entire world isn't suitable long term as a desktop OS?

It's become so easy to use Linux as a desktop OS that even my wife is on Debian: not exactly a "newbie friendly desktop distro".

Is the whole Gnome/KDE/Xorg/Wayland a mess? Sure is. And yet Linux is definitely here to stay.

Linux shall still exist, even on the desktop, long after I'm gone.

Linux is perfectly viable on the desktop.