Re: [TUHS] FreeBSD behind the times? (was: Favorite unix design principles?)

On 2/3/21 11:43 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: ZFS needn't be compressed, and I don't generally do compression or encryption unless required by law, so I can't speak from personal experience on those use cases (others, far more experienced can). I do know that it's truly a pain to recover from issues with either. In response to the negative vibes around ZFS. I've never lost a file (or a piece of a file) in 10+ years of using ZFS. I get the feeling we may not be talking about the same ZFS. My experience is with the ZFS FreeBSD comes with, not the version that Oracle owns. Perhaps the info is a little out of date for the naysayers. In my experience, using ZFS is fairly transparent and simple to use - no partitioning to deal with, no need to worry about generating filesystems, none of that - add your disks to a pool, choose your RAID levels and it gets mounted, no fuss. I've lost plenty of disks along the way, but ZFS just keeps on chugging along nicely until I replace them and then rebuilds the arrays, again, no fuss other than replacing the hardware. In terms of massive system updates and such, I just snapshot the environment (a near instantaneous operation) before making significant changes to my system, that might break things and when they do break (and they do, more often than I'd like), I just rollback. man bectl. Painless (and I mean painless, hundreds of times, or mor). I'm sure it all sounds scifi, but it's my experience along with plenty of other folks, and this ZFS sucks thread seems to be FUD to me - ala Microsoft vs Linux, or at best informed hypothetical speculations - reminds me of an if statement conversation I had online in the early 1990's where one group of folks claimed that braces worked a certain way, based on the then current standard, and another group of folks (I'd be on this side of things), tested the theory with a host of compilers, observed the functions effects, shook their heads and wondered why it didn't match up with the theory, and said it worked another. Who was right? I'm still not entirely sure, from a philosophical perspective, but I have since coded my if statements according to my environment, not the standards. As I mentioned in the prior thread, I've lost my share of files and file systems (many, many times since 1993 when I started with linux - 0.9 kernel, slackware, then redhat, then debian, now mint) with ext3/4, and btrfs, though, and the only recovery was backup (a time intensive process). I really don't see the logic behind the negative arguments. Don't like it, fine, say it and live it. Claim it sucks? Then, back it up with a real-world, current experience and I'll cede the point - I'll keep using ZFS though :). I want to be clear, I don't dislike Linux. I don't think FreeBSD is superior. I like both. I use both... daily. With enough prep and planning, my linux environment is similarly recoverable, but with freebsd, the prep and planning requires a lot less time and effort. Personally, I heart linux Mint - it's based on Debian and Ubuntu - is a straightforward install, works well, has zfs (not yet on boot), has timeshift (lovely piece of software), and can be quite pretty. Vive la difference. Will