http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Correlation_does_not_imply_causation
Especially when you're picking data as selectively as you do.
I'm not going to start a flamewar. Please respect my objective opinion. I will respect your personal belief.
http://people.freebsd.org/~murray/bsd_flier.html
http://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/6/Freebsd.html
http://www.cvedetails.com/vendor/33/Linux.html
Not only freebsd has less vulnerabilities, but they are also less serious (check exploit or data execution)
so there might be more bugs and exploits to discover.i acatualy like that there has been more holes in linux, because it means that they are fixed.
Linux is used more than *BSD as a desktop OS by fangurlz with Tux The Penguin avatars (excluding OSX).
Linux is used more than *BSD as a server OS by businesses that hire fangurlz with Tux The Penguin avatars.
On the other hand, when me move into the world of the critical systems that keep the Linux kiddies' interwebs running smoothly, we find that *BSD has been used for much longer and with greater success:
Quote
Over ten years of work have been put into enhancing BSD, adding industry-leading SMP, multithreading, and network performance, as well as new management tools, file systems, and security features. As a result, FreeBSD may be found across the Internet, in the operating system of core router products, running root name servers, hosting major web sites, and as the foundation for widely used desktop operating systems.
The reason for this is that:
Quote
BSD is designed. Linux is grown.
You do know that without BIND and BSD, there would never have been any Linux or Tux, right?You do know that the root nameservers have always and will always run BIND on BSD, right?
So why don't you write to the Internet Assigned Numbers Authority about how your magical Tux so much more secure and popular than BSD.
I'm sure they'll be blown away by the force of your irrefutable, highly technical argument that "bugs, holes, and exploits are good."