Portability and modernity instead of a security focus?
I'm not sure why I would use a fork of OpenBSD instead of just FreeBSD though. I've always seen the primary benefits of OpenBSD as deriving from their obsessive focus on security, but if this fork isn't focussed on that I'm not sure what I gain vs. other BSDs that already have these goals and objectives in place/completed.
Exactly. OpenBSD is very specific in what it is. That description is more a description for a fork of FreeBSD or NetBSD.
OpenBSD has always had a strong focus on protability. It's just the focus on portability was never restricted to "modernity" for the reason that there's few interestingly different processors anymore you can compile against to check for breaking errors.
It would be interesting though if Bitrig became sort of a DragonflyBSD for OpenBSD, where weird experimental stuff can be tested in a separate playground.
> Portability and modernity instead of a security focus?
It is you who say "instead", can't it be "in addition to"?
I thought this is where NetBSD shines, why not just enhance NetBSD? or why pulling OpenBSD into embedded space?
Forking is the way of the BSDs. The BSD style is to develop the userland along with the kernel. Thus where Linux has multiple distro families BSD has full userland and kernel forks.
That doesn't explain why you'd start from OpenBSD.
http://bsd-beta.slashdot.org/story/12/06/13/1645211/openbsd-...