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.
Yup, that's because X is part of OpenBSD base system, called xenocara, whereas in FreeBSD, you have to use the Ports tree to install Xorg.
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.
Comments
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.
Yup, that's because X is part of OpenBSD base system, called xenocara, whereas in FreeBSD, you have to use the Ports tree to install Xorg.
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.
is FreeBSD any worse than a minimalist linux distro like Arch in this regard?
https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Arch_compared_to_other_dist... exists, but probably does not answer your question.
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:
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.