> it feels to me like there is a persistent & vocal small group of people who seemingly either have some agenda that makes them not wish to consider BTRFS Loo

> it feels to me like there is a persistent & vocal small group of people who seemingly either have some agenda that makes them not wish to consider BTRFS Look here is the problem. The BTRFS people declared multiple time that it is stable. For a few years it was repeatably 'BTRFS' is stable now if you use it in such an such a away. But then it destroyed a drive. Then it a few years later and now it was actually stable. But then it destroyed data again. I know what they are saying about themselves but unfortunately the project has simply lost credibility with a lot of people. File system should be developed to be stable first and then slowly add features never being unstable. They shouldn't still regularly destroy peoples data after years of years of development. While at the same time ZFS has been basically stable since early days, many developers at Sun switched their root drives to ZFS before it was even officially released. It never had years and years of routine instability. > Few other file systems seem to face anywhere near as much criticism, Where few file system claimed they were stable for years while routinely losing data. The file system has one job first and foremost, don't destroy users data. This is not a conspiracy, this is simply the reality that tons of people have lost data because BTRFS repeatably claimed stability when it wasn't. Its now another couple years later, likely this wouldn't happen again. But that after all these years they still haven't managed to get RAID 5/6 fully working doesn't exactly scream confidence. So me and I assume many others simply have lost confidence in the project and the approach they take to the development.