Microsoft triumphed back than because it try to conquer students, desktops, old big-iron Unix players fall because they ignore it, so the move is logic but the

Microsoft triumphed back than because it try to conquer students, desktops, old big-iron Unix players fall because they ignore it, so the move is logic but the main issue for FreeBSD are not much laptop/wifi but mere modern iron generic support and power management just for the hw, for the software the issue is that maintaining a FreeBSD desktop means more work to keep the system up to date than Arch. Since they have no license issues they should focused on: - zfs crypto root (native or geli, does not matter) by default, supported in the installer; - boot environments support with zfs clones, as normal way to update the system; - zfs integrated jails for software development (like IllumOS zones) focused on exposing a controlled set of package in a local cloned FHS to offer the equivalent of NixOS/Guix shell; - easy creation of custom images, as easy as NixOS; - curated minimalistic desktop offer (Emacs/EXWM, i3 or another tiling WM, fluxbox with ALL relevant modern desktop stuff (like dunst already there for notifications, udiskie for manage removable storage, a nice network manager GUI of some kind, ...) and a good XFCE setup by default. There is no need for more, but there is a big need of sane defaults and meta-packages selections. These would be the real "basic stuff we need to succeed" like the SUN OpenSolaris Indiana move back then, ditching from the old SXDE/SXCE model for a modern FLOSS familiar one, but with the best tools GNU/Linux do not have.