Not really. Even TrueNAS Core (ZFS) highly recommends ECC memory to mitigate this possibility from occurring. After reading more about filesystems in general and when money allowed, I took this advice as gospel when upgrading my server from junk I found laying around to a proper Supermicro ATX server mobo.

The difference I think is that BRTFS is more vulnerable to becoming unmountable whereas other filesystems have a better chance of still being mountable but contain missing or corrupted data. The latter usually being preferable.

For desktop use some people don’t recommend ZFS as if the right memory corruption conditions are met, it can eat your data as well. It’s why Linus Torvalds goes on a rant every now and then about how bullshit it is that Intel normalized paywalling ECC memory to servers only.

I disagree and think the benefits of ZFS on a desktop without ECC outweigh a rare possibility that can be mitigated with backups.

Aside from furthering the development of the architecture (I assume they are contributing and not just taking), It’s meaningless as Qualcomm couldn’t give two shits about open source chip documentation for the chips they release. I’m only interested in a native Linux phone. Meaning no BSP garbage.

Yet another example of leeching off of open source and not giving back anything meaningful.