In fact, OpenBSD has gotten a lot more verbose over the years, due to sub-processes being listed explicitly. Good example here is `smtpd`, but even then, the difference with Linux remains... stark.
That's because Linux is showing you the kernel processes and OpenBSD isn't.
Filter out the Linux ones that have [ ] around them (grep -v ]$ will do the trick) but just a quick glance tells me the Linux and BSD lists are about the same length.
Counterpoint: possibly OpenBSD doesn't really have any relevant 'kernel processes' (in line with the model: the kernel is there to serve user-mode, and not a goal on its own). (And tangentially: why do I need multiple `psimon` kernel processes? Tire pressure is good to keep in mind, I guess, but, at the kernel level? Repeatedly?).
I truly don't know, by the way; this was merely an example to illustrate my perceived difference-in-complexity between Linux and OpenBSD, which might be entirely misguided, but definitely part of the issue the article linked in the submission hints at?
> why do I need multiple `psimon` kernel processes?
It's the way that module is organised. There's nothing wrong with the idea, you'd need to dive into the code to understand the details.
> illustrate my perceived difference-in-complexity
It depends on the situation. Seeing many kernel threads is one kind of complex. Not seeing the kernel threads and not being able to understand which one is having issues is another kind of complex.
You just saw how the sausage is made, but that has nothing to do with the final taste / how the system actually behaves.
In fact, OpenBSD has gotten a lot more verbose over the years, due to sub-processes being listed explicitly. Good example here is `smtpd`, but even then, the difference with Linux remains... stark.