> The reason ZFS isn't the norm is because it historically was difficult to set up. Outside of NAS solutions, it's only since Ubuntu 20.04 it has been supported

> The reason ZFS isn't the norm is because it historically was difficult to set up. Outside of NAS solutions, it's only since Ubuntu 20.04 it has been supported out of the box on any high profile customer facing OS. In this one very narrow sense, we are agreed, if we are talking about Linux on root. IMHO it should also have been virtually everywhere else. It should have been in MacOS, etc. However, I think your particular comment may miss the forest for the trees. Yes, ZFS was difficult to set up for Linux, because Linux people disfavored its use (which you do touch upon later). People sometimes imagine that purely technical considerations govern the technical choices of remote groups. However, I think when people say "all tech is political" in the cultural-war-ing American politics sense, they may be right, but they are absolutely right in the small ball open source politics sense. Linux communities were convinced not to include or build ZFS support. Because licensing was a problem. Because btrfs was coming and would be better. Because Linus said ZFS was mostly marketing. So they didn't care to build support. Of course, this was all BS or FUD or NIH, but it was what happened, not that ZFS had new and different recovery tool, or was less reliable in the arbitrary past. It was because the Linux community engaged in its own (successful) FUD campaign against another FOSS project.