They have, and broadly speaking I certainly agree with how they choose to engineer their software, to an even higher degree than (whatever I still know about ho

They have, and broadly speaking I certainly agree with how they choose to engineer their software, to an even higher degree than (whatever I still know about how) the FreeBSD team choose to engineer their software. (FWIW, that's why I actually run OpenBSD on the few non-Linux machines that I use :-) ) However, it seems to me like this is one of those cases where there's more than one way to skin a cat. FreeBSD is missing a lot of useful hardening features, such as ASLR (yay, it's 2003 again!), and has made a couple of "interesting" security choices, but judging by the number and scale of FreeBSD deployments, it seems like there are convincing ways to work around these problems in practice. That document suggests there's a lot of work involved in working around them reliably; again, the number and scale of deployments would suggest that the trade-off is considered reasonable by a lot of people.