Your initial analogy is wrong, then, since—if modern Linux is also bad for those things—then OpenBSD being bad for those things wouldn't thereby make it an example of the OS "retaining classic Unix sensibilities" that modern Linux does not.
So other than SGI and NeXT, which although UNIX based had their focus on other kind of development stacks, which UNIX sensibilities are so great examples of graphical applications and game development tooling?
I think you misread my statement? I wasn't disagreeing with you. Rather, I was pointing out—in way of explaining why everyone was jumping to argue with you or downvote you—that the most obvious reading of your comments are an incoherent argument, and you should probably clarify what you mean.
In your first comment, when you said "Like being quite bad for graphics programming and game development", you were implicitly forming the larger sentence: "[Retaining] classic Unix sensibilities ... like being quite bad for graphics programming and game development."
And—since the topic of the thread was "OSes that are better because they avoid going down the road of RedHat-like 'modern' Unix sensibilities"—you were implicitly forming a larger assertion: "[OpenBSD, because it retains] classic Unix sensibilities [unlike RedHat] ... [is] quite bad for graphics programming and game development[, unlike RedHat, which is okay at those.]"
And so that's what people tried to argue with you about, which I hope makes people's rebuttals to your first comment make more sense to you.
But then, in your second comment, you went ahead and said that modern Linux is equally bad at doing these things. So clearly the expanded form of your assertion isn't what you meant.
RenderDoc works great on Linux. I prefer it to the Metal debugger for the simple reason that it actually works without regularly crashing and popping up a "please file a radar" box.