On Thu, Nov 21, 2024 at 11:39:24PM -0500, Eric Renfro via talk wrote:
I mean, a number of distributions are defaulting to BtrFS. The exception is, Ubuntu. Because for some reason, Ubuntu wants to suggest and push ZFS, but only on their main edition, Ubuntu actual. Every other spin doesn't offer ZFS but instead lets you install using BtrFS. Even Ubuntu Server edition lets you use BtrFS.
Fedora defaults to BtrFS. OpenSUSE defaults to BtrFS.
EndeavourOS, can use BtrFS, though not sure if it's necessarily default or not. Debian lets you install with BtrFS, in both standard install and Live install (Calamares based).
Anyway, all that asside, I've been using BtrFS a good part of 10~15 years now, and with great success mind you. I use it extensively including bootable snapshots, use of snapper, and I've done so with distros like Ubuntu (manually), Linux Mint (Post install script modifications), LMDE (same with scripting), Debian (Manual during install), Fedora, and EndeavourOS (Even better setup with customized installation as per their user_commands.bash approach).
I only poked btrfs briefly very early on. I decided to try it on my laptop (which was the one before my current one, so it has to be at least 13 or 14 years ago now, given this is 12 years old), and quickly decided that a filesystem that would tell you it was out of disk space when writing files while also claiming to have multiple gigabytes free, and should have that much free based on the size of the drive and the files I put on it, was just not something I needed to deal with. A filesystem that says 'disk full' while df reports space available is just not user friendly. I hope that has improved since. Of course since I have had no interest in snapshots or any of the other neat features, I just haven't gone back. Of course I also have had no interest in looking at ZFS either since I also didn't need its features, nor the potential license hassles. -- Len Sorensen