Also this mechanisms are too complex to be useful.
GNU libc has more features than both musl and uClibc but its not lightweight. Its pretty bloated if you compare.2. musl and uClibc are jack fuck shit compared to glibc. glibc is robust, versatile, lightwieght and secure.
I bet you never used apk-tools.3. Both pacman and apk-tools are far superior to the rusty ports used in all BSDs.
I disagree. OpenBSD does a pretty good job with security and Linux' pluggable security model is overrated. If you want a secure Linux kernel, have a look at Grsecurity patch.OpenBSD is not more secure then Linux, its actually less secure because they do not have anything like AppArmor or SELinux. They rely on the hopes of their OS being bug free so if it isn't, there's no layers of defence.
They were pretty early with propolice and stack smashing protection. They implemented W^X and they are pretty good with privilege separation. (read about why they wrote their own ntpd and invented BSD auth instead of PAM and the privilege separation ideas they implemented there).
Basically, they assume that the software that runs is buggy and tries to make it hard to exploit those bugs. Thanks to this they have discovered many bugs in 3rd party apps and thus contributed that Linux userland has become safer.
Does this mean that some people will hate it for the Linux kernel while others will hate it for the OpenBSD user space?
It's fake. Look at the project core repository (http://mirror1.starchlinux.org/pkg/core/) recomended for update. It install standard utillinux and coreutils packages. Nothing used from OpenBSD.
It's fake project. In repository only packages utilslinux and coreutils, nothing form OpenBSD.