ZFS is widely used by many users and organizations. Just because it is not currently included in the Linux kernel does not mean that it is useless. There is ongoing work to integrate ZFS into the Linux kernel, and in the meantime, many users continue to find value in using ZFS on their systems. As an alternative, you could try using FreeBSD, which includes ZFS as part of the kernel. This can make it easier to take advantage of the features and benefits of ZFS without having to install and configure it separately. Additionally, because ZFS is integrated into the kernel, it can take advantage of FreeBSD's advanced security and performance features.
Enlighten me on how a filesystem with an incompatible license is ever going to be mainlined. Having to use an out-of-tree patchset is an immediate no as far as I’m concerned. I also have no intention of switching to an hobbyist operating system, thank you.
Linux hasn’t really been a hobbyist operating system for years as anyone taking even a casual glance at a list of contributors would know but sure let’s all pretend FreeBSD is somehow relevant or properly maintained. That’s probably in the same universe where ZFS has a chance of being mainlined and isn’t heavily encumbered by Oracle owned patents.
Why people would contribute to this mess is beyond me but everyone is free to do what they want.
> Linux hasn’t really been a hobbyist operating system for years as anyone taking even a casual glance at a list of contributors would know but sure let’s all pretend FreeBSD is somehow relevant or properly maintained.
You haven't glanced at a list of FreeBSD's contributors, have you?
I know FreeBSD is used by Sony on its console, by Netflix and by WhatsApp. Everyone knows because they are pretty much the sole serious contributors to it. I don’t think it’s particularly relevant nor do I think it’s particularly good to be honest but we are getting far from the initial discussion about ZFS.
