Nonsense, it&#x27;s just a straight up ridiculously uncorrelated, terrible metric.  Which would you say has been more buggy and broken, djbdns or php?  nacl or mysql?  qnx or openssl?  windows 95 or ping?  Which one of each do you think has had more &quot;discussion and updates&quot;?  Which one of you think is better code?<p>Code quality has nothing to do with how much jibber-jabber there is on some mailing list, nor with how widely used a piece of code is.  It has to do with the actual code.<p>In the case of Alpine Linux (which I&#x27;ve never used), probably 50% of the code is the linux kernel itself, another 20% is musl and busybox, and the rest is random gnu utilities.  Which of those things is &#x27;low quality&#x27; and has &#x27;undiscovered bugs and security vulnerabilities&#x27; that broken, random, low-quality high-politics tire fires like most linux distributions don&#x27;t have?<p>But conversely, is it not intrinsically obvious that not having the grotesque pile of random freshman desktop apps and terrible init systems that other distros have, could reduce the attack surface to a point where a single organization could conceivably make sense of it?