Consider giving OpenBSD a try. Xorg works OOTB, and then you can add whatever WM or DE you prefer, or just configure what's in base (fvwm or cwm) to your liking. Here's a couple of good guides:

https://sohcahtoa.org.uk/openbsd.html
https://www.c0ffee.net/blog/openbsd-on-a-laptop/

I actually did try OpenBSD in a VM, and yes I did get into X after install. If I were to switch from Linux to BSD, or have an extra machine to play with, it would still have to be FreeBSD or a derivative there of, at least for me the main reason for this is the lack of a journaled FS in OpenBSD. ZFS looks very attractive, and I am glad BSD (at least FreeBSD), finally decided to add a proper modern journaling FS, as I would probably not put any stock into UFS+ or UFS2 . The features ZFS has to offer looks great, particularly data storage; unless XFS support ever were to be added. Ironic that ext4 read/write is supported in FreeBSD, and something like SGI's XFS port to Linux isn't; but those are just details.

Search the web for OpenBSD FFS with "soft updates".

ZFS is a lot more than just a journalising FS.

As a file server, FreeBSD+ZFS is a good option, but when I see someone struggling to get a mouse working on GhostBSD (a desktop oriented OS) and then not able to start X on FreeBSD, I'd have to assume that they're not interested in running a file server?

No I am not interested in running a fileserver, but I have an external HD (formatted XFS). I'd keep it that way if BSD supported SGI's XFS, but obviously it does not. Sure BSD supports ext4 but I am just not impressed by ext4. Soft updates or ZFS , sorry I'll go with ZFS.

As far as I'm aware there is no rw ext4 support in any *BSD. In OpenBSD there is ro support as I recall.

OpenBSD (and FreeBSD?) support ext2/ext3, but without ext3's journaling. So ext3 is treated as ext2. So you would probably not want to mount ext3 as rw either.

(XFS is supported ro by FreeBSD, either that or rw support might be experimental - can't recall which.)

Experimental does not sound promising, and even if I were on ext3, then my best bet would still be FreeBSD / derivative and not OpenBSD. I rather do not understand why support for XFS in FreeBSD would be experimental since the source for that has been out at least over a decade now, so implementation should have resolved any major issues (one would think). OpenBSD just does not seem viable as a third option (as my second alternative choice would be Devuan Linux).


Also I honestly do not care about binary blobs. If I have to run the NVIDIA driver to get my graphics to work correctly, thats another tick for FreeBSD over OpenBSD. I am not so ideologically driven to narrow down my hardware choices over the idea of just absolute no closed hardware. If my NVIDIA card works in FreeBSD just fine with the NVVIDIA driver, thats good enough for me. So, FreeBSD / derivative is my final answer on that issue.

For XFS, someone has to do the work and want to do the work and maintain it. Until that happens, you won't have proper XFS support. Plus there is ZFS, so perhaps no real incentives?


Nvida UNIX driver is for Linux/Solaris/FreeBSD as that's what the vendor chose to support.

So then, FreeBSD it is?


Again, looks like I will be choosing FreeBSD over OpenBSD then.

Why not. You just need to work on getting X to start.

Thats fine. I don't mind getting my hands dirty a bit. Getting X to work is just a minor hassle I suppose.

-edit

Or there is always derivatives - maybe I'll give TrueOS a spin this time.

YMMV, but I find TrueOS to be kinda buggy. And Lumina (although you can certainly change it) has got to be one of the most awful, eye-cancerous desktop environments, EVER.

Yea I am not too fond of Lumina either.