Would also add that, overall, BSDs are much more lean and well designed than Linux. There are thousands of Linux developers submitting patches all the time, in every direction. That's part of what makes Linux great, but it also makes it a huge mess of code duplication and design bloat. Dbus is a mess, /proc is a mess, netlink is a mess, systemd is a mess, hell eBPF is an insane mess. Linux has a huge legacy of bad APIs, tools and design choices, that were integrated in a rush. That makes Linux trendy, but definitely not what you want when you're just interested in a stable, understandable kernel to run your core infrastructure ou embedded equipments. Not to mention even tooling and network daemons on BSDS are much easier to work with and configure IMHO.

I've been doing kernel development for Linux since a while now, and I'm always amazed at how much time it takes me to understand a new subsystem I didn't use before, because everything is SO damn over engineered it's a farm fest for geek. Whereas when I hack OpenBSD or FreeBSD on my free time I feel like I can be productive making changes in an unknown subsystem in just a few days of reading code and playing with it.

They way I've seen it described is that BSD is designed, Linux is grown.

Every part of BSD is from BSD. The kernel, network stack, init system, userland, sshd, etc are all made and released together. Ideas are driven by teams and committees and then implemented.

Every part of a functioning Linux system is from a different vendor. "Linux" makes the kernel and network stack, the init system comes from the FreeDesktop project, the userland comes from GNU, sshd comes from BSD. Things are driven in a variety of different ways, by different people, with different goals and thoughts on how Linux should look. Eventually it all gets glued together and we see what we've got.