I am not defending OpenSSL but I am not sure your comparisons are very informative and quite frankly some of your sloccounts seem to wander far away from fact.

> OpenBSD has had two holes in a heck of a long time

Two remote holes in the default install. The default install is configured in such a way as to minimize the attack
surface area. Do you know what services are configured to respond to public internet traffic in the default install?
OpenSSL on the other hand essentially is always interacting with public internet traffic. Do you use OpenBSD on your
desktop and laptop?

> 453,000 or so lines, more than five times the size of xv6

Are you referring to Xv6, "the simple Unix-like teaching operating system" a project designed for education and not
commercial service offerings? How does this comparison of the size of xv6/OpenSSL inform the debate? The Linux
kernel has 12 million lines of code. What should I conclude from this number compared to OpenSSL? Do you think some
of PolarSSL's failures with frankencerts can be explained by how small the code base is? Please see the addendum for
more sloccount discussion.

> Do believe that aspiring to the security...even at the cost of features?

I don't mean to be difficult but I have no idea what you are asking here. Which features are you referring to?
Without some specificity of "cost of features" this seems to be more about showmanship and rhetorical style than
fostering meaningful debate. Do you run OpenBSD on your desktop/laptop?

> Why should I use OpenSSL for TLS termination when formally validated alternatives exist?

What are these alternatives? I did not realize there were multiple formally validated alternatives to OpenSSL.
Maybe we have different opinions about "alternatives" versus "implementations."

SLOCCOUNT Addendum:

I did not want to inject a pile of sloccount data in the main body of my comment but I do have some questions about
your counts. After a little research it seems that your numbers might be somewhat hand wavy which is unfortunate
because you gave no indication of this in your comment.

What versions of OpenSSL and PolarSSL are you referring to? My count for OpenSSL 1.0.1g puts it at 6.5 times the
size of PolarSSL and not the 10 times that you stated in your comment. I could not connect to OpenSSL.org so I do
not know if they have released a version since April 7th but I must say I am surprised that that the OpenSSL dev
team added 91,344 lines (25% increase) in the last seven days. And even if they did that still puts them 90,000
lines short of "ten times the size of PolarSSL."

My sloccount data:

# OpenSSL 1.0.1g:
Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
ansic: 273820 (75.71%)
perl: 69192 (19.13%)
asm: 11015 (3.05%)
cpp: 4367 (1.21%)
sh: 3238 (0.90%)
lisp: 24 (0.01%)
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 361,656

# PolarSSL 1.3.6-gpl
Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
ansic: 52212 (94.71%)
sh: 2165 (3.93%)
perl: 748 (1.36%)
tcl: 4 (0.01%)
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 55,129

# Linux kernel 3.14
Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
ansic: 11828087 (97.00%)
asm: 275047 (2.26%)
!!!TRIMMED counts < 0.5%!!!
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 12,193,312

# Xv6
Totals grouped by language (dominant language first):
ansic: 7022 (87.81%)
sh: 481 (6.01%)
asm: 301 (3.76%)
perl: 189 (2.36%)
lisp: 4 (0.05%)
Total Physical Source Lines of Code (SLOC) = 7,997