Well, there's GhostBSD, which works with 32 bit, I think.
But honestly....if you want an easy to use desktop, you're better off with Linux. (Though if you went to some of their forums and criticized, they'd say, Leave, we don't want you--you're getting treated more nicely here than you would be on some Linux forums.)
For my needs--browsing, terminals, video stuff....once I do the 6 minutes or so to install FreeBSD, I do pkg install xorg-server, a driver for the video, input device drivers, mplayer and some other stuff and I'm done. Actually easier than Fedora, where one needs to add an extra repo to get some codecs.
What losses of funding are you discussing? Please be more specific.
So, who gets funding due to their great desktop support? Fedora? They get it from RedHat--that 2 percent market share--that's for all the Linux versions--isn't getting funding. RH gets it from its servers. Ubuntu gets it from Mr. Shuttleworth.
Linux's desktop support is useful if one wants to avoid Windows or Mac, but even with Lady Gaga saying she uses Ubuntu, has such a small desktop share, that many vendors pay NO attention to whether their machine works with Linux. Complain to Amazon video that your Linux won't properly play a video and you'll be told they don't support Linux.
So, perhaps FreeBSD and other BSDs will fall by the wayside. Perhaps, Linux's gradual swing towards being user friendly will so alienate the ones who use it commercially, system administrators, that within 5 years, it will be almost dead. Perhaps some other system will be developed that puts them all to shame.
TL;DR Linux's easier to use desktop isn't getting it very much commercial support, it has an almost non-existent desktop share, less than 2 or 3 percent.