I do agree FreeBSD is not the best choice for the desktop; it may lack proprietary drivers for many closed hardware. But the proprietary video drivers are quite on-par in terms of performance with the Linux equivalents. Still, saying FreeBSD sucks because it isn't the best choice for the desktop is kind of strange. Comparing server features would be much more logical. Though you can also see what is possible with FreeBSD by looking at Max OSX, which basically is a fork of FreeBSD with a new graphical shell built on top.
Server operators probably look at FreeBSD with different eyes. In particular, FreeBSD has arguably the best ZFS implementation, with unique features that integrate ZFS with jails, allow booting from RAID-Z pools, automatic SWAP volumes and other enhancements. Linux userscan compile ZFS kernel module themselves or use FUSE module, but basically they are restricted to their own project called Btrfs. And last time I checked, Btrfs could not even correct filesystem damage making it an alpha-quality filesystem at the moment. ZFS is fully usable and the most sexy filesystem to date.
FreeBSD developers may not hate the GPL, but rather the GPL v3 poses a real threat to FreeBSD. Currently they still use the latest GCC compiler collection still released with GPL v2; the newer versions with GPL v3 will not be used, although they can be installed using the portstree. Instead, FreeBSD goes its own path by not being dependent on very restrictive licenses such as the GPL v3. The LCC/Clang compiler collection is being leaded by Mac OSX will make sure FreeBSD does not keep behind with an outdated compiler suite, an important infrastructure development needed to allow FreeBSD to keep alive.
Perhaps you could state your opinions with a little bit more nuance, DaemonFC, then you may even get some positive replies instead. There surely is some truth in what you're saying, but due to your extremely negative attitude it currently looks more like a troll post.