What's the point of having up-to-da.te information if the ideology of the few who use FreeBSD only interested in freebsd for server. Since I started testing this system for the first time years ago, there have only been toxic discussion of using it for desktop environment, there ...who don't want it to be extended by default for desktop environment, and things full of opposition.
So to be clear, the "few" who use FreeBSD as a server should stop doing so, as they are somehow blocking those who want to use FreeBSD as a desktop?
So why do those fanatics of commands,refuse to allow FreeBSD to be extended by default for the desktop environment? As has been discussed in other threads, the base graphical installer for FreeBSD should have two options, one for the base system installation, and the other by continuation of the desktop environment by default. But no.... make of starting a toxic discussion with countless negative elements, shutting down the possibility of FreeBSD being extended by default for the graphical desktop environment.
No users, whether desktop or server users, have much, if any, influence over development. Your options are very simple:
1) Address your concerns to the developers / port maintainers
2) Get involved and do the work yourself
3) Pay someone to do it
If (1) doesn't yield the result you want, (2) is not your area of expertise and (3) is out of the question, then you should consider using a different OS.
...because there are end users who would like FreeBSD to be extended by default for desktop environment, the end users are the majority in the world. In all these 30 years of freebsd's existence, some topics have been closed for falling into toxic, useless and sterile discussions.
The "end users", though a multitude, are not the developers, nor in most cases those providing funding or code contributions. Therefore they have very little say.
...there should be two options to choose from, one for the continuation of the base system installation, and the other option for the continuation of the default desktop environment, as well as in debian.
You might prefer Debian. You are comparing an "everything is a package" Linux distribution to FreeBSD which is a base system plus ports/packages, which are not part of the FreeBSD base OS. You may as well go to the Debian forums and tell them they've got it all wrong and that everything should go in a directory called "Program Files". Debian has a "default" desktop: gnome (by the Red Hat backed gnome project - which is quite arguably one of the main reasons why systemd was shoehorned in). The lack of a default desktop is actually a good thing, as it prevents an OS just becoming a narrow focused "vehicle" for said desktop and leaves the options open to the user, instead of foisting some freedesktop.org crap on them as standard. It also means that FreeBSD is not taking any particular position of endorsing a certain desktop / annoying users who don't want that desktop.
End users have their own tastes when it comes to using the systems, and therefore, not be told to look for other systems, just because of the whim of users who have their own interests in the servers.
"End users" have their own tastes and FreeBSD has many possibilities. If those possibilities aren't enough, or the skillset of the user is a mismatch to what is expected, the user is better off looking elsewhere.
To develop "easy" and "automagic" functionality (and in the process add far more complexity, losing good things like plain text configuration and adding non human readable binary config) which you see in Debian (a lot of which actually came from Ubuntu and others) actually takes some hefty corporate funding. There is no tangible benefit to developers in devoting volunteer man hours into projects aimed at making everything GUI driven and "easy" unless they're getting paid to do so. i.e. there is no sense in a FOSS developer automating, almost every aspect of an installation to serve the needs of users who won't put in the effort and believe they're entitled to an easy ride. Only proprietary vendors such as Microsoft and Apple will do that, for products, which they sell for profit.
At the moment you appear to be suggesting that server and command line users, block FreeBSD from being developed in other ways - to fill alternative roles and use cases - and you appear to believe that once these people are silenced, developers will emerge from the ether and start doing this work, to serve whims of some entitled "end users", who contribute nothing, all entirely for free.
That's not how it works.
Even if the project was ultimately abandoned after a few years, I imagine that FreeBSD found a way to benefit from that, it was not a complete waste.
.
forums.freebsd.org
