Here's a general question, are these vulnerabilities hitting Linux more than BSDs due to hit being a larger target or because its architecture is less secure by design?

It’s two things. 1. Less eyes are on the bsds

2. Bsds don’t have the same optimizations that Linux has. Bsds generally try to pursue corrrectness

That being said there were just a bunch of vulnerabilities in freebsd

macOS has had its own dirty cow attack and I know there’s for sure more memory ones just based on the way the xnu kernel works.

So no Linux isn’t really worse per say

Larger target.

in many ways:

- more people are using it (assuming macos is in its own bucket perhaps) - bigger surface areas (esp NetBSD has in my limited understanding just less stuff that can go boom) - more churn, ie more new stuff than can be buggy released more often.

Of course, because of that, more eyes are on Linux, so I'm not sure where that security tradeoff is.

AFAIU, Linux and the BSDs have basically the same architecture - the BSDs just value secure and simple, understandable code more highly than Linux vs features and performance.

This is really not a correct statement beyond the fact that both are a type of Unix.

Linux is not Unix: it is not derived from AT&T Unix.

By that definition, nor is BSD. It's kind of their whole raison d'étre.

Linux 2.2 or 2.4 or so (possibly only Suse Linux) even had a kernel startup message "Unix compliance testing by UNIFIX" or something, back when Unix was considered more prestigious than Linux. It is / was by some official definition "a Unix", though not "UNIX the trademark by AT&T".

I’m fairly certain they’re referring to POSIX compatibility, not calling a Linux a Unix.

Oh damn, you are probably right.

What are the differences? I think of both as Unix-type sytems with macrokernels. I have no practical experience with BSDs.

Jeez, care to reply instead of downvoting? I would really like to know. I do keep an eye on the BSDs as a good example in some areas where Linux is bad.