> Both ZFS and ASLR are more interesting for servers than for desktops. On what basis are these claims made? I'm tired of hearing this excuse trotted out ever

> Both ZFS and ASLR are more interesting for servers than for desktops. On what basis are these claims made? I'm tired of hearing this excuse trotted out every time someone posts about ZFS or ASLR. ZFS (or a filesystem possessing many of the same characteristics) is absolutely still valuable even on desktops. With consumer storage devices reaching ever loftier maximum capacities, data integrity becomes even more important as the loss of that data can have a profound impact on a person's life. Given the questionable quality of hardware in many consumer devices, having a filesystem that detects corruption as it is happening, and works to ensure that it is corrected automatically when possible, seems like an obvious win. While a typical consumer is unlikely to have a ZFS raid device even if they had ZFS, they would still benefit from all of the other protections it offers. It should be fairly telling that Apple is adopting many of the same technologies ZFS offers in their own consumer filesystem (except, regrettably, checksumming) because they too understand that it does matter. As for ASLR, that's important too because it's yet another mitigation tool to make it less likely that an individual system is compromised. Haven't the past few years of various malware/ransomware announcements been enough? We should consider every practical tool available at our disposal to mitigate such attacks as valuable.