You have to break your paragraphs into sentence. What you wrote below is nearly unintelligible.
Could BSDs have any future on the desktop?
If enough paid programmers get paid by their employers to do so, it might be able to compete with Linux. I don't think it can be done with volunteers. Volunteers, at a few hours per week, even at a dozen hours per week, will have a very hard time doing the same thing that lots of people who get paid to work 40+ hours can accomplish. And there are lots of people who get paid to improve Linux; they are paid by RedHat / SUSE / ..., but also by companies such as Intel, IBM, and other large Linux users and distributors.
However, we have to keep in mind that the marketshare of Windows and Mac together on the desktop adds up to roughly 100%. The most recent statistics I saw showed that about 80% of all desktop (non-mobile non-tablet) usage was Windows, about 20% was Macintosh, ChromeOS was in the low single-digit percent, and Linux was below 1% (I think it was 0.7% last I looked, a few weeks ago). Of those, ChromeOS is growing, all the others are shrinking. Now you have to take into account that all the BSDs together are probably 1/10th or 1/100th of the share of Linux. Which brings up the question: Why would anyone who is thinking rationally want to invest in that? Want a free OS for commodity hardware? Use Linux, it does the job well enough. Or use Windows; the license cost of Windows is much lower than the support cost for strange OSes. Want something that is easy to manage and use? Use ChromeOS.
In particular, at the GUI / user interface layer, there is very little distinction between *BSD and Linux. Any desktop environment or browser that's available for BSD is also available for Linux, and usually much better supported and tested there. The advantages of BSD come in the server setting (much more manageable, clean, and organized); in the desktop space, the differences are minor.
Other than hobbyists who like to play with their computers, and religious nuts who happen to hate Linux and Mac and Windows, there is no niche for using *BSD as a desktop. I happen to be in one of those categories (I play with computers as a hobby, which is why I have FreeBSD machines and Raspberry Pis at home).
they will maintain their nature without becoming Windows,
What is wrong with Windows? Very little. It works excellently. It can be easily installed and managed (which is why it is one of the favorites of corporate environments, where support costs are very important). Whether you like to use it or not, it is quite easy to use, as legions of users demonstrate. On the contrary: I personally would like it if Linux and BSD became more like Windows, even though I find it unlikely that it will happen.
giving everything that is served to the user with everything preconfigured and with default bloatware,
One man's bloatware is the next man's convenience. There are wonderful advantages to pre-installing lots of useful stuff, in particular if you want to attract more user who want to actually use the computer, not spent hours fiddling with it.
The remainder of your post I couldn't figure out what you meant.
