FreeBSD has had ZFS for what, over five years now? They are the reason it exists in any actual use (OpenSolaris/Illumos don't count) on any non-Sun/Oracle platform.
God forbid it take the Linux guys longer to get it up and running when Sun purposely licensed it to be difficult to do so on Linux.
And Linux's wannabee ZFS competitor BTRFS (oooh, look at us) sucks so bad it can't get off the ground.
So, this being Linux, some guys* also designed Btrfs to do the same things in the meantime. How dare they!? Sun released ZFS after 4 years of work; Btrfs, 2. Presumably they were working under more of an "agile" setup? Which doesn't really make sense for an FS but hey.
So what does Linux do.... import (steal) ZFS from OpenZFS/FreeBSD
It's called porting, and I don't see how you can call it "stealing" in any honest way.
and start posting about how great all their work with ZFS is, and how Linux bloggers now say 'oh yeah, ZFS is actually solid, so we can use it'. As if they are the only/first ones to certify ZFS.
If you actually skim the article he is saying ZFS On Linux is ready, not ZFS itself.
Thing is, ZFS was always solid. When bashing ZFS Linux was really just babbling about ZFS's more open and free BSD License and their own failure of BTRFS.
Was there bashing of it? Being on Slashdot only since 2007/8 I thought it was more Linux people being irked that they couldn't play with it due to the licensing rather than saying it was crap.
Also, I really hope you're aware that the CDDL and the BSD License(s) are not the same thing. ZFS is CDDL.
If you want an integrated system that just works, try FreeBSD.
You're using "just works" and ZFS in the same argument? With a straight face? The intersection of "Just Works" and people who use ZFS has to be pretty small. If you want Just Works just slap an ext3 or ext4 partition on your desktop and be done with it.
* Interestingly, Wikipedia says Btrfs is (was?) actually an Oracle project. Oracle, of course, bought Sun, which made ZFS. So maybe "competitor" isn't entirely accurate?