This is clearly gish gallop, but I'll reply. >The on-disk format was declared stable in 2013 And the mkfs.btrfs tool was labeled stable, and the experimental

This is clearly gish gallop, but I'll reply. >The on-disk format was declared stable in 2013 And the mkfs.btrfs tool was labeled stable, and the experimental tag was removed from mkfs.btrfs warnings. It was also mainlined into the stable branch at that point. It wasn't just the on-disk format that was declared stable in 2013. >It was not a declaration that the filesystem was itself now stable necessarily, Yes it was, as explained above. >Furthermore, the "it's been X years!" thing referring to open source projects has to stop. This isn't some "open source project," this is the operating system that underpins modern computing. It's developed by full time engineers paid by megacorps. It's not some solo developer's side project, not in the slightest. >If we measure everything based on whether it's as good as what Sun Microsystems was doing in the 2000s, we're going to have a bad time. Not at all, we're going to have a great time. Great engineering stands the test of time. >As an example, DTrace is still better than LTTng is right now. I hope that sinks in for everyone. Did you get ChatGPT to write this? It's clear you have zero experience in the tracing and observability space. eBPF is the next evolution, not LTTng. It's never been and LTTng, LTTng has minuscule usage. I hope you're ignorance is clear for everyone reading this. >However, OpenZFS is not backed by Sun Microsystems, because Sun Microsystems is dead. No, it's maintained by dozens of engineers from multiple different companies and governmental orgaizations. >Now if OpenZFS eats your data, there is no big entity to go to anymore than there is for btrfs. Wrong, Canonical supports ZFS. >As far as I know, there's no big entity funding development, improvements, or maintenance. LLNL (the US government), among others, are funding the development of OpenZFS. >That suggests that their brand image somewhat depends on the rarity of btrfs bugs in their implementation, but Synology has a somewhat good reputation actually. No, Synology has a terrible reputation. They removed btrfs functionality from budget models and left customers in the dust: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26800062 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26800062