I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying LibreSSL isn't bug free either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreSSL#15_October_2015 buffer overflows and memory leaks aren't great.
Just take a look at a "security comparison" between LibreSSL and OpenSSL: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreSSL#Security_and_vulnerab...
Severity LibreSSL OpenSSL
High 0 5
Medium 15 28
Low 7 10
Total 22 43
LibreSSL has had no "high" vulnerabilities, whereas OpenSSL had 5. Decide for yourself which way to go.
EDIT: Sorry, can't format that table nicely here..
...
> LibreSSL has had no "high" vulnerabilities, whereas OpenSSL had 5. Decide for yourself which way to go.
I'm not defending or apologizing for OpenSSL (or any project), but your rationale isn't consistent, seemingly only trying to evoke an emotional response.
Since heartbleed, lots of new SSL implementations have sprung up (Libre, Boring, etc), and hard lights have shone on OpenSSL as well. The scrutiny and competition will come to be win for all consumers of SSL. It's not clear to me (as a consumer) that any project has a huge leg-up over another (though Libre's wholesale dump of a tremendous amount of legacy code sounds like a step in the right direction).
Do we even know this won't show up in other (Boring, Libre) implementations as well ?
Edit: formatting
The GP is pointing out that LibreSSL has avoided the 5 vulnerabilities that OpenSSL marked sev:high since the fork. There isn't any inconsistency about that, it's a pure apples-with-apples comparison.
> It's not clear to me (as a consumer) that any project has a huge leg-up over another
LibreSSL has avoided almost half of the OpenSSL vulnerabilities found since the work. What more do you want?