[gentoo-hardened] Updates: a way too simplified security question I am asking anyway

Hello,
some people in gentoo forum made me ask this one: it is supposed, that regular updates of system is a wise thing to do, but, excuse me, ... those bugs and holes are there before someone say "update them" -- so do you agree, nowdays Linux is never safe?
OpenBSD has its own slogan about only very few remote holes in long time -- so it makes an impression, I can install an OpenBSD machine and let it do it's job.
Can anyone crash my impression about OpenBSD (and is it still alive enough, by the way?)?
How about hardened gentoo in this regard (create system for few, specific purposes and leave it for years without damn update hustle)?

I realize, this is "in general", but the question is about software writing style (think when write it or wait for someone to find what is wrong) and ways to protect from bugs (like overflows etc) in software.

In ideal world, updates are necessary only to get software, that has new functions -- do we seam to approach it?

Jan

• This message: [ Message body ]
• Next message: Arne Morten Johansen: "Re: [gentoo-hardened] Updates: a way too simplified security question I am asking anyway"
• Previous message: Jan Klod: "Re: [gentoo-hardened] Tin Hat memory requirements?"
• In reply to: Natanael Copa: "Re: [gentoo-hardened] Tin Hat memory requirements?"
• Next in thread: Arne Morten Johansen: "Re: [gentoo-hardened] Updates: a way too simplified security question I am asking anyway"
• Reply: Arne Morten Johansen: "Re: [gentoo-hardened] Updates: a way too simplified security question I am asking anyway"
• Reply: RB: "Re: [gentoo-hardened] Updates: a way too simplified security question I am asking anyway"
• Reply: Javier Martínez: "Re: [gentoo-hardened] Updates: a way too simplified security question I am asking anyway"

• Contemporary messages sorted: [ By Date ] [ By Thread ] [ By Subject ] [ By Author ]