Each file system has different advantages and disadvantages.
There is simple summary explanation if you don’t want to get complicated:
Why I chose BTRFS:
Your first point is a big one, but here’s another good reason @Zesko from the principal developer of ext3/ext4.
In 2008, the principal developer of the ext3 and ext4 file systems, Theodore Ts’o, stated that although ext4 has improved features, it is not a major advance; it uses old technology and is a stop-gap. Ts’o said that Btrfs is the better direction because “it offers improvements in scalability, reliability, and ease of management”.
Excuse me but this graph is pure nonsens.
btrfs main strength is COW wiriting mechansim?
That is it? zfs and xfs also do copy-on-write. It is a pity that this is the main strength the authors want to mention for btrfs. Isnt there anything else? checksums for example?
xfs main weakness is security?
The webpage says: “Among the drawbacks of the XFS file system is a serious lack of security against silent disk failures.” Interesting. is that any different to ext4 or even btrfs?
And further they say: “XFS is also deficient against ‘bit rot’, which causes a nearly complete inability to recover files in case of data loss.” bit rot can only be detected with checksums and it can only be repaired with a raid setup. But is that a “security” issue? There are only 2 filesystems with full checksum support: btrfs and zfs. Do all other filesystems now have a “security” issue? At least xfs has checksums for metadata.
zfs requires a sophisticated setup?
More sophisticate than btrfs? No. And the authors repeat false claims like these two:
(1) “Plenty of its processes rely upon RAM, which is why ZFS takes up a lot of it” - zfs has an excellent caching mechanism. Best in class I would say. Per default it tries to use up to 50 % of the available RAM for caching. And that is good. And you can limit this to whatever value you like. And the zfs cache will be released first if apps demand more RAM. So you will not end up in a situation where zfs eats your RAM and you can not work anymore.
(2) “ZFS requires a really powerful environment (computer or server resources, that is) to run at sufficient speed” No, it does not. I can tell you by personal experience from my desktop PC and my laptop.
False statements like these two are copy&paste from one place to the other. It is a pity.
Management level of btrfs is “easy”.? Actually easier than any other fs on that list? Easier than ext4? No way! I almost fainted when I read this. 
I am just picking one example that immediately came to my mind: free disc space. btrfs is a nightmare when it comes to determine free disc space. And it is so bad with reporting free disc space that it even breaks Unix command like du or df.
Conclusion: The authors of this article have no clue! Just copy&paste stuff that you find on the internet does not make you an expert.
COW stands for 
-on-write
P.S. Sorry for hitting reply to your post, it was meant in general thread 
I didn’t have the willingness to read that whole article but even at a glance the fact that btrfs is listed as “Easy” for maintenance and xfs and ext4 are listed as “Medium” seems somewhat nonsensical.
btrfs needs regular maintenance like scrubs and balances run. xfs and ext4 need little to no maintenance…
I use Btrfs but don’t get your point about Debian.
Care to expand it?
Ext4 is a perfectly useable and functional filesystem. I would argue it is the best and most logical choice of a filesystem if one does not need advanced features.
Also, there is nothing wrong with using Debian, it is a perfectly useable distro.
Yea, basically you extrapolated what I wanted to say. Dunno why everyone assume offensive.
Sorry! I thought you were just keeping us entertained
I saw those tabs in Btrfs Assistant. When and under what circumstances should they be run?
I run scrubs monthly.
Unless you are doing something atypical for a desktop use case, it should be sufficient to run a balance monthly as well.
If you have btrfsmaintenance installed, there will be a tab in Btrfs Assistant that will let you schedule them. If not, they can still be run manually from the overview tab.
I picked btrfs because I can use snapper and btrfs assistant, but that being said, I like ext4 also.
OK, now this noob want to try BTRFS 
Say I have on one partition already installed EOS with EXT4. System is efi.
Can I use one larger partition and install another EOS alongside the first one with BTRFS?
Will they coexist without any problems? That way I could test BTRFS system 
I’m not quite new to multi boot. On my computer I have installed MX, 3 x EOS (don’t ask why lol), Manjaro and all works ok. (well, I didn’t try Manjaro for a few months, but last time I checked all worked)
But they are all on EXT4.
If mixing partitions with EXT4 and BTRFS is ok, are there any tips, tricks or any important things a noob should be aware of?
Why don’t you test in a virtualbox / VMware?
I just added @dalto’s extra package btrfsmaintenance to Btrfs Assistance package.
So now I have a maintenance-free Btrfs partition.
I just noticed a bug in your screenshot. I will have to fix that.
I just noticed a bug in my brain. Since using your program I have been calling it Btrfs Administrator, but I just now saw it’s called Btrfs Assistant. I will fix that too. 
Thanks to an advanced search function in Discourse…
done
Yeah I guess it’s about notice about needing balance
It’s so much unbalanced
What’s the bug?
It isn’t properly handling mountpoints with whitespace in them. It is an easy fix. I am a little surprised that nobody(including me) didn’t notice it already.
