[SoftTalker]

Because the vast majority of personal computer users have no need for the complexity of zfs. That doesn't come for free, and if something goes wrong the average user is going to have no hope of solving it.

FAT, ext4, FFS, are all pretty simple and bulletproof and do everything the typical user needs.

Servers in enterprise settings have higher demands but they can afford an administrator who knows how to manage them and handle problems. In theory.

[mixmastamyk]

FAT bulletproof? The newest versions have a few improvements but this is a line of filesystems for disposable sneakernet data.

[SoftTalker]

Maybe bulletproof is a bit strong but I mean, it was fine on DOS/Windows for decades. I never lost data due to filesystem corruption on those computers. Media failures, yes frequently in the days of floppy disks.

[mixmastamyk]

Running scandisk and chkdsk was also a thing for decades. Luckily the lost sectors were often in unimportant files. But definitely a gamble.

The bulk of the safety came from the redundancy of copying the file across machines, not filesystem protections.

[pjmlp]

I had a HD fail on me while using Windows 98 as main OS, yet thanks to ext, I think it was ext2 at the time this happened, I still managed to repurpose it for Linux, for several months.

It was ok from possible data failures point of view, I didn't had much data other than the distro and the stuff I also needed to compile under Linux.

Somehow it managed to still work with the disk, with the sectors that were not damaged.