articles/bsd.md: update

articles/bsd.md

@@ -6,15 +6,22 @@ be considered a clean room implementation of Unix.
 
 Compared to Linux, BSDs have managed to keep the bloat in check and a reasonable codebase.
 
-{ I've yet to try a BSD, so anything written here (as of now) is from an "outsider" perspective, forgive any erroneous statements ~tocariimaa }
+Unfortunately due to not being as popular as Linux, hardware support is lacking, even for old computers more than one thing is broken
+(suspend-to-RAM, audio, Wireless cards...), so unless you run really old hardware (or just a computer that happens to work) BSDs are not
+a very reasonable choice. For servers maybe, but note that BSD more insecure than Linux.
+{ Installed FreeBSD on a thinkpad, resuming from suspension is broken and after installing
+the graphics driver, the console just broke, now the installation is bricked LMAO. Now I get it, BSDs aren't mean for desktop usage
+but for insecure servers :DDD ~tocariimaa }
 
 ## Main BSD distros
 - [FreeBSD](https://www.freebsd.org/): the most popular, quite "Linux-like", plans to drop support for 32 bit architectures.
 - [NetBSD](https://netbsd.org/): focus on portability, main user of [pkgsrc](https://www.pkgsrc.org/),
 supports [Lua](lua.md) in the kernel for driver prototyping and kernel configuration.
-- [OpenBSD](https://www.openbsd.org/): quite hysterical with "security features", but functional as its contributors actually daily drive it.
+- [OpenBSD](https://www.openbsd.org/): quite hysterical with "security features", but functional as its contributors actually daily drive it (on thinkpads).
 Was forked from NetBSD.
 
+No, MacOS is not a BSD. FreeBSD users, stop coping.
+
 ## Historical BSDs
 - 386BSD: first version of BSD for IBM PC like computers. It was ready before Linux was released but due to legal issues with AT&T
 it couldn't be released until 1992, a year later after Linux initial release. FreeBSD and NetBSD were forked from 386BSD.