You need to have a known brand in order to be recognizable and grow your audience.
You are right about techniques how to gain popularity, how to grow customers.
And we don't need to argue about that more users are better.
No question.
But just growing - raise the number of users, only - alone will not do good.
Especially not, if the growth is too fast.
You need to grow reasonably. There are many things that need to also grow, and many more others that need to be adapted, and even changed, too
Many people miss the point there is a crucial difference between quality ("gain more users is good") and quantity: 5,000 new users per year were good, 5,000,000 within a year were fatal.
Old engineering expertise:
You cannot simply enlarge something by just scale it up.
Simple example from history:
The 19th century (aka "industrial revolution") was the dawn of modern engineering: Mass production of steel was needed for steam engines, railroads, steamships, etc. which were needed for the mass production of steel. All together it was the foundation of industry, economy, and technology still is based on until today. In these days of rapid growing of railroads, and mass production of steam engines the mechanical engineers had to learn that the hard way. There have been many terrible accidents: terrible train crashes, exploding steam engines et al.
As it turned out:
Using the double size of steel does not provide the double resistance. You cannot simply build a wagon with twice the load capacity by just doubling the axle's diameters. The function of resistance per mm steel ain't linear, but is convergent to a maximum.
Same experience with armor. Until app. WWII more armor was simply done by just using thicker steel plates.
But besides three times thicker steel plates provide less than three times armor, you get additional problems like heavier vehicles, and having no solution when new armor penetrating technologies occur.
Finding:
You cannot simply enlarge something by just scale it up.
All parameters a system consists of interrelate in a complex way. Having a working system created means one solution was found in which all parameters - and their correlations - are in a working balance.
Looking at such a system with an unexpertised eye may bring the idea of simply scaling it up would get the same system, but bigger. Wrong. Because not only the size of the parameters change, so do their intercorrelations, which are often not obvious at the first glance. You also get other, and new parameters get into charge when you change the scale.
Example FreeBSD:
The vast majority of computer users use either Microsoft Windows, or Apple Mac OS, while from those who don't (which are already minority) most use Linux, and from those most use Ubuntu, Mint, OpenSUSE, or something likewise. So anyway some turnkey OS.
Let's pretend Microsoft pisses off "just" 25% of all Windows users so they suddenly turn their back on it - too unreliably working machines, too many crashes, too much loss of time due too frequent updates, too much distraction by up-popping BS, too high license fees, too few trust in privacy,... whatever (what they can best
.)
According to AI there are ~1G W10 and ~1G W11 users. That were ~500M users suddenly looking for an alternative.
Almost all of them never seen anything unlixlike before, nor are willing to learn about computers, because they are used to get an OS served on a silver platter, turn key, with the promise: "Don't you bother about the computer. Just use your applications. The system cares about the whole rest automatically." They are convinced not only everything with the computer can be done with the mouse, but any kind of TUI already is freaky hacker stuff to them they don't want to learn, not even remotely. Most of those are already completely overchallenged with terms like "file", "memory", "storage drive", "save file", "copy" - not to mention 'hardcore hacker tricks' like setting up an internet connection, or even install a system. Plus, what they see at the first glimpse: It all looks completely different as they are used to, and not so nice colorful flashy neither...
Now imagine just 1% of those decide for FreeBSD. That were 5 million people enter this world within a few months.
Do you believe that's good?
And by all I elaborated above I remind you: This will not be done, by those all just simply download the installation image, read the handbook, install, use, and then contribute to FreeBSD. Already many in computers actually interested, even experienced nerds don't do it that way.
To master such there are exactly two ways:
You either adapt the system to the users. Or you adapt the users to the system.
1. Either FreeBSD needs to be changed to become a foolproof turnkey OS, all automatically installing and configuring including
one prechosen GUI with
one preconfigured DE and a pre-picked comprehensive selection of software packages.
This would be the end of FreeBSD. Contradicting it's original core idea, because this would make FreeBSD just another turn key OS, which are suitable only for single user desktop machines. While there already are more than enough choices to pick from. And those are already experienced, established, and capable to deal with large amount of users, and serving their needs: Ubuntu, OpenSUSE, Mint, Fedora, DragonFly, GhostBSD,... don't nail me on this. I don't know them, nor which are up to date, or which are dead. But there several to pick from. You know.
I see no sense in why to take the effort to kill the core idea of FreeBSD, why to kill FreeBSD, just to turn it into another turn key OS, to add it to the pool of already enough existing choices, which are already way more established as FreeBSD could catch up in ten years.
Explain to somebody, who never ate something else than fast food bought at chain restaurants, never used a stove before not only now has to cook for her-/himself but above all also eat otherwise: potatoes instead fries, apples instead pudding, wholemeal bread, salad, vegetables, fruits, less cheap meat, less meat at all, less sugar, less fat, less salt, less flavor potentiators, more natural flavors, less deep fryed, more steamed, more raw...
Now imagine to try this a million times at the same time.
Those who cook for themselves, know it not only cost less, but can be fun, and eating that way is not only healthier, but actually enriches life. And of course it was better, when more people would take that road. Not for themselves, only.
But try to convince just a single fast food junky.
Only fewest people change by reason. Most will not change, unless they must. And even when they have to, the new has to be as close to what they are used to as possible. And even so there are simply many - not a few - who simply refuse any changes at all, whatever the cost.
Which brings us to the second of those two possible ways:
2. Change the people. This is possible. Within limits with conditions. But above all it's a long and strenous process. Needs time; not years, decades. Needs patience.
BSD, and Linux people already going this way, paving it, proving day by day alternatives are not only possible but even better, even if not for everybody, but for many, and day by day a few more come to the good side of power.
This cannot be achieved by simply gaining more popularity, by having a good logo, good advertisment, good marketing strategies etc. alone.
It needs more.
Among other things: time, patience, foresight (not to be confused with vision), and reason.
