> One thing I wonder about though is: why does a system which goal is security still use C for utilities/programs that are not really CPU-bound? Maybe it's time to slowly ditch C for a safer language where possible? (There are languages that would fit in quite well with OpenBSD, except that they require some portability work.)
OpenBSD's security goal (and expertise) comes from its programmers typically being really skilled at C programming. Some OpenBSD utilities use other languages, though (like the package management tools, which are written in Perl last I checked).
The bigger concern, however, is portability. OpenBSD supports a lot of hardware platforms, rivalled only by NetBSD as far as I know. There's also licensing restrictions; the goal is for OpenBSD (or at least as much as possible) to be entirely permissively-licensed. Any language that doesn't satisfy those two requirements may very well be a nonstarter.
OpenBSD's security goal (and expertise) comes from its programmers typically being really skilled at C programming. Some OpenBSD utilities use other languages, though (like the package management tools, which are written in Perl last I checked).
The bigger concern, however, is portability. OpenBSD supports a lot of hardware platforms, rivalled only by NetBSD as far as I know. There's also licensing restrictions; the goal is for OpenBSD (or at least as much as possible) to be entirely permissively-licensed. Any language that doesn't satisfy those two requirements may very well be a nonstarter.