[microtonal]

There's not enough data / samples of secure operating systems to make an intellectually honest assertion that one approach is definitively superior, but OpenBSD likely has the best security track record for an operating system in real-world scenarios.

While auditing is definitely a good idea, the latter approach only works when you only run services and applications that are part of OpenBSD. Since that is not the case for most realistic usage scenarios, OpenBSD gives you very little, while the former approach (think e.g. SELinux) can help you with isolating applications that you trust, but not as much as, say OpenBSD.

[upofadown]

The comment you are replying to does not mention auditing.

[ljw_dev]

It's implied. The comment mentions code correctness and, per the article, this comes from "the extensive code auditing performed on the base system".