I'm making the argument that Linux (with a larger developer base) is capable of matching any feature in BSD, while still having cycles to spare for improving its own base in terms of speed, reliability, web pages served etc.

I didn't realise this was still controversial, my impression was that benchmarks had shown back in 2006 (or earlier) that Linux had caught up to BSD, and since at that time it had a faster rate of change, I assumed that would continue, and extrapolated the trend.

It has been so long since I saw a serious discussion about whether Linux or BSD was better that I assumed it was a moot point by now. If that is _not_ actually the case, then mad props to the BSD devs for doing more with less. I don't follow Linux development trends, if the number of kernel developers has fallen off in the last couple of years that would be a shame, but perhaps not surprising, as a lot of dev work gets moved behind closed doors (cough Google and other 'cloud' companies uncough) or you might argue that once Linux gets to a certain percentage of 'perfection' that there are fewer and fewer 'itches to scratch', and less urgency to scratch them (as a kludgy workaround may present itself)