Traditionally, most FreeBSD developers would actually run OS X on their laptops, whereas most OpenBSD developers would still use OpenBSD even on laptops.
This was especially notable at BSD-wide events like BSDCan, AsiaBSDCon, EuroBSDCon etc.
OpenBSD supports suspend to disk, whereas FreeBSD does not. (Is this being changed as part of this laptop project?)
OpenBSD has always supported graphics, sound and other desktop things in the default kernel, without having to tinker with kernel config or loadable kernel modules. FreeBSD? http://cr.yp.to/unix/feedme.html
Also, on OpenBSD, the basic X is part of the base system, in the xenocara repository, and it basically just works, straight from the default installer:
OpenBSD actually does NOT support loadable kernel modules at all, and you're strongly discouraged from running a customer kernel, too. This has a side effect that both graphics and sound works out of the box, since deviation from defaults is discouraged, and if it didn't work by default, it'd not be recommended in the first place.
On FreeBSD, even the most basic X stuff is part of the Ports tree, which basically implies that most installations wouldn't have it, and it's often far less integrated, and requires way more tinkering, than xenocara on OpenBSD. For example, when you know most of your installations wouldn't have X, would you have graphics and sound support in the default kernel, or would that require further tinkering of the kernel config and/or LKM?
(On both systems, you still install KDE and GNOME from ports/packages, if needed, it's only the lightweight basic X and WM stuff that's part of OpenBSD base xenocara.)
So, even though FreeBSD is faster and more popular in many ways, to most people's surprise, OpenBSD actually has better laptop support.
This was especially notable at BSD-wide events like BSDCan, AsiaBSDCon, EuroBSDCon etc.
OpenBSD supports suspend to disk, whereas FreeBSD does not. (Is this being changed as part of this laptop project?)
OpenBSD has always supported graphics, sound and other desktop things in the default kernel, without having to tinker with kernel config or loadable kernel modules. FreeBSD? http://cr.yp.to/unix/feedme.html
Also, on OpenBSD, the basic X is part of the base system, in the xenocara repository, and it basically just works, straight from the default installer:
https://xenocara.org/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenocara
OpenBSD actually does NOT support loadable kernel modules at all, and you're strongly discouraged from running a customer kernel, too. This has a side effect that both graphics and sound works out of the box, since deviation from defaults is discouraged, and if it didn't work by default, it'd not be recommended in the first place.
On FreeBSD, even the most basic X stuff is part of the Ports tree, which basically implies that most installations wouldn't have it, and it's often far less integrated, and requires way more tinkering, than xenocara on OpenBSD. For example, when you know most of your installations wouldn't have X, would you have graphics and sound support in the default kernel, or would that require further tinkering of the kernel config and/or LKM?
(On both systems, you still install KDE and GNOME from ports/packages, if needed, it's only the lightweight basic X and WM stuff that's part of OpenBSD base xenocara.)
So, even though FreeBSD is faster and more popular in many ways, to most people's surprise, OpenBSD actually has better laptop support.