Listen retard, first of all, it was my sole opinion on why FreeBSD boxes could show long uptimes. You have your opinion, I have my. I did not say "this is exactly why FreeBSD is better than Linux."
No problem. It's just that in these BSD stories, you get a lot of masturbating about how BSD is and has always been the best, and sneering at any mention of Linux or anything related to Linux. It's probably because there isn't enough traffic in this section for the angsty teenagers and elitists to vent regularly.
Take a look at any distro and you'll see that it is nothing but a kernel patched with a bunch of libraries and utilities that may or may not vary from one distribution to another.
So pick one good distribution and ignore the 100 shitty ones (including some commercial ones). If a FreeBSD fork showed up called CrapBSD and did everything wrong, could I then infer that BSD's suck because of my experience with CrapBSD?
I have no idea if an unused module can present an immediate danger; however, why the fuck would you want to have useless code to begin with?
Why the fuck would you want to maintain your own custom kernels on each machine and have to rebuild every time you have to change hardware to the vendor's chip-of-the-day?

I prefer kernel security updates in the form of nice binary packages without having to worry about a locally-maintained mess. Sure, there's a bunch of modules that I don't use and will probably never use. They take up disk space and filesystem entries. If you can think of anything else negative that their mere presence poses, I'm all ears. I happen to like being able to swap a network card with what is handed to me and not be bothered with which chip is on it.

FreeBSD and OpenBSD (do not know about NetBSD) undergo massive audition projects.
http://www.debian.org/security/audit/ [debian.org]
Then there are kernel security levels in additional to system run levels.
I don't know what you're talking about here. Are you referring to capabilities?
As far as I know, there are no public CVS servers avaiable for Linux users who wish to get the latest updates of their distros.
For Debian and Gentoo users there are. But who cares about CVS? I thought we were talking about servers here? I have a nice tool called cron-apt running on all of my servers to grab binary security update packages every 12 hours. The only time any of my servers reboot is for a hardware failure or new kernel. I've never been rooted (yet).
I do not feel warm and fuzzy about running beta drivers on my servers so I can notify the rest of the world about the bugs that I may find.
Where did I recommend or even suggest running a beta driver on a deployed server? Where does any Linux kernel developer recommend doing such a thing? Beta drivers are for us to beat up in our test environments, not to roll out into production without any validation. So I still don't see why it hurts to have beta drivers available for testing and feedback when they are clearly marked as such.