There have been better backup programs for Mac than Time Machine for years. I don't really think it's a reason to use or not use macOS on its own. I think the

There have been better backup programs for Mac than Time Machine for years. I don't really think it's a reason to use or not use macOS on its own. I think the issue is Time Machine much more than the underlying file system. If you use Time Machine as a "convenience" backup instead of a critical file storage backup it does the job well. It's the fastest and simplest way to restore an exact image to a new computer, when it works. I don't think it's wise to depend on that type of local backup for critically important files in the first place when you've got free or trivially expensive higher reliability and durability services available (things like S3 and B2 or even just plain old consumer cloud storage that is professionally managed). E.g., my free tier Dropbox that I've kept miscellaneous important documents on for over a decade has never lost a thing, and it also stores the folder locally for an automatic second/third location on each of my systems. It's really brainless and consumer-friendly with reliability that I'd call "good enough for the layperson." I can't say the same thing about any of the local hardware I've put backups on, regardless of whether it was Time Machine or some other backup method.