Arguably Opensource Linux with thousands of users auditing and checking the code would be more secure than OpenBSD with 6-12 security auditors.
I'd like to hear more about this.
My understanding was that although there are fewer auditors for OpenBSD, there is substantially less code, less features enabled by default, and
a primary focus on security.
Please note that, at this stage, I don't have any allegiance to any particular OS, so I'm open to hearing how others here are securing their systems. As I understand it, however, although there are plausibly more people auditing Linux in general, there are many different distributions across which these audits occur, and a general inclination (in the most popular Linux distributions) to push functionality and third-party software-bundling over security. This makes audits hard.
For example, we have used the Debian edition of Linux Mint on some machines here, and while I admire the OS, there is a lot of complexity there on the standard installation, and a lot of features automatically enabled.
Conversely, with OpenBSD, on other test machines here, we have to turn on features as we need them, rather than disable features when we don't.
It seems like the most popular Linux distributions (and therefore the most audited) are also the most difficult to audit, as they are designed for mainstream use where functionality and bundled software is prioritized over security.
Obviously, we could opt for a more 'secure' Linux distribution, but then these distributions are less widely used and therefore less audited.
I hope this makes sense. In summary: The most audited Linux distributions are also the most sprawling; making audits much harder to rely on.
OpenBSD seems to strike a balance between the size and skill of the audit team, combined with a smaller codebase to audit.
In other words: There may be more Linux being audited, but I feel there is also more Linux to audit. This makes the equation a difficult one...