Well, I was thinking more like “They have organized man docs, and a strong set of CLI user land tools because they are developed alongside the kernel.” But I’m an Oxford comma man myself.

Google Oxford comma. It’s not simply a comma before an ‘and’.

I know, it was a joke on His dismissiveness. I'm only half as clever as I try to be

Those sound like excellent gains in and of themselves.

ZFS DTRACE and pf....oh and the mantra.

BSD ZFS I believe uses the same code as Linux nowadays or was at least planning to.

eBPF should cover your other two needs, by way of itself and through bpftrace.

> BSD ZFS I believe uses the same code as Linux nowadays or was at least planning to.

Just because FreeBSD and Linux share the same ZFS upstream it doesn’t mean the experience of running ZFS on Linux is in any way comparable to running it on FreeBSD.

For starters, it’s a default in FreeBSD rather than an optional driver you have to install yourself (or even compile yourself on some distros). And that along makes a massive difference when it comes to maintenance.

What is the benefit of using ZFS on a personal or dev machine? I almost never tinker with filesystem partitions or allocation once I set them up as part of installing an OS. I occasionally do on a production machine if I've misjudged space needed for something, but there again it's pretty rare.

Boot environments for operating system upgrades. They take advantage of ZFS.

Snapshots was the biggie that made me switch to ZFS more than 10 years ago. Never looked back.

Oh it's massive especially for kernel-devs/os-devs, snapshots and boot-environments (bectl)....for personal machines...zfs-send..never have to think about correct backups/restores anymore.

I run Windows and macOS on my personal and dev machines (so don’t use ZFS), but I’d really appreciate the peace of mind of bit rot protection.