What about OpenBSD? Sure, it has a good track record of being secure, but it's important to release that only counts for a default setup.
You can ruin the security on any operating system, by it Linux, NetBSD or OpenBSD. Sure, you can explicitly destroy the security from within, but that's not OpenBSD's fault. The default system is very complete and usable; you don't need to open security holes, but if you do, it is your fault. Be more careful next time.
You just finish saying "I'm sickened by the uneducated posts on how NetBSD sucks" and you turn around and say, basically, "OpenBSD sucks". Your point is correct, but it applies to every system, not just OpenBSD.
My absolute favorite part about NetBSD is the presence of clean, human readable code.
One of my big problems with Linux is that everything is an an absolute mess. Your friendly neighbourhood BSD is generally much easier to understand. There is less clutter, less cruft. Everything is just seems so much simpler and more consistent.
I think people just have the wrong image of NetBSD. It does feel like something to use on bizzare achitectures where other operting systems, such as OpenBSD or FreeBSD won't run. It needs to shake off the image of being an alternative to an alternative operating system, if you know what I mean.
But mostly I think the problem is that no one knows anything about it. They've heard about Linux. They've heard Linux is easy to use, stable, cutting-edge, hip and generally kick ass. But they've heard that *BSDs are hard to use, poorly documented server operating systems with poor support and no software.
Gee, that sounds like Linux a few years back now, doesn't it? In time everyone what they are missing and convert. Maybe. :)