Don't. I've tried them all and FreeBSD is the easiest to set up, has a shit ton of packages and building programs from source is automated and configurable. Also there's ZFS. It is a very good system, faggots or not.
If you aren't really interested in the other BSDs for their particular quirks and features (or want to develop), you should use FreeBSD. If you grow tired of it, you can transfer almost all of your acquired knowledge to other BSDs without headaches.
BSD thread?
I use OBSD on the daily it's a pretty nice experience. Great ACPI support, abundant documentation, and simple well designed CLI's make it a real plesure to work on especially on a laptop. The main two usecases it doesn't work well at all for are production systems with critical data because of the lack of ZFS or a alternative like Hammer or btrfs (sort of), and systems which need lots of packages not in the ports tree like if you play a lot of games or something like that. I think raid and UFS is plenty for your average home server and as a home router it's pretty unmatched. On the license issue I'm not a fan of the BSD license, if I contribute to the project I'd rather my code not be modified slightly and sold by a third party but I don't let that get in the way of me using the best software I can.
BSD's aren't distributions of one operating system like distributions of GNU are. All the BSD's, even ones like oBSD who have an active predecessor, are entirely different operating systems with a different kernel, packagebase, and userland. If there's any similarities between the projects, they're no more comparable with each other as they are with GNU, so until you can convince people that oBSD is a GNU/Linux distribution whose only meaningful distinction is its subtle "quirks" because they're both technically Unix-like operating systems with superficially compatible behaviors, it's just as disingenuous to imply that oBSD is a fBSD distribution or some facsimile, and that's very telling of the authority of your own advice, if the unwarranted, barely-related image you uploaded to your post for the sole purpose of garnering attention didn't already make that evident.
...
Yeah, I know, thanks.
Installation and configuration across the BSDs are very similiar, depending on the BSDs they use similiar documentation, they share developers, you will probably use the same tools and their filesystem hierarchy is really similiar too. If you can't take anything away from using FreeBSD for a month and apply it to, let's say, OpenBSD, then something went wrong. You can even use the same firewall (they're not entirely the same anymore though). They're probably more similiar to each other than slackware and ubuntu, or something.
If someone just wants to try out some BSD, my advice is to use FreeBSD for the reasons listed and not rule it out because of some SJW bs. I didn't imply they're just distributions and are basically the same, so maybe your paranoia has gotten the better of you or you can't actually read. The point stands: if you have no interest in any of the things that make NetBSD or OpenBSD or whateverBSD different, you may as well go the easy route and figure it out on the way there. OpenBSD is perfectly usable on a laptop, even when it's not a thinkpad - but I felt that FreeBSD was even easier to use and has features that make it attractive too. Also ZFS and naturally more up-to-date ports. NetBSD was the worst to set up for me personally (ports also out of date and good luck finding a server in Europe).
In case you didn't notice, there's no IDs here, so not sure what good your ad hominem is going to do.
I was never addressing your main point. As for my ad hominem, it was mostly just me insulting you for the hook shit itself, not in connection to your broader point. In that sense, it doesn't detract from the fact that's it's an impolite thing to do. I'm sorry if it came off that way. I don't know you too well, user, but I would expect such low behavior from the Kiki poster, not you.
...
Fuckin' nice.
this
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, GNU/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, GNU plus Linux. Linux is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning GNU system made useful by the GNU corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full OS as defined by POSIX.
Many computer users run a modified version of the GNU system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of GNU which is widely used today is often called "Linux", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the GNU system, developed by the GNU Project.
There really is a Linux, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Linux is the kernel: the program in the system that allocates the machine's resources to the other programs that you run. The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called "Linux" distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux.