I am assuming people reading my posts are not morons. I listed the specific advantages of snapshot RAID. It only takes a little bit of thought to realize the implication -- that the other systems being recommended lack those advantages, and are therefore a poor choice for the usage described by the OP.
Except, that you're basically calling everyone a moron by asking them to believe this ridiculous explanation. How is it non-morons, in your view, give bad advice in the first place?
Please stop drawing this thread off-topic by posting nonsense and unsupported accusations. The people reading these posts are not morons, and do not need to have every obvious implication spelled out for them.
Yes, unsupported except for the fact you actually wrote that a lot of people were giving bad advice. I guess in your worldview there are nefarious non-morons who aren't poorly informed but nevertheless give bad advice, for unknown reasons.
Listed, highly generalized, benefits of snapshot RAID
mix and match any number and capacity of drives
You can do this with md-raid and LVM as well, not unique to snapshot RAID.
start with already filled drives
This appears to be a unique advantage of SnapRAID. But the reason it's possible is because SnapRAID is implemented above the file system level, and that is also why there absolutely will be an upper limit to scalable performance.
expand one drive at a time without completely rewriting the whole array
Can be done with ZFS. Can be done with mdraid. Can be done with LVM.
can lose more drives than you have redundancy (parity), you only lose the data on the dead drives, not the entire array.
Again because it's implemented above the file system, each disk retains its own file system.
Of your four listed benefits, two are valid and unique to SnapRAID.
Now, considering your logic appears to be that you do not have to state specific bad advice, or why it matters or may be a problem, rather all one must do is state a deficiency and the deficient implementation is to be summarily rejected, I choose as my arbitrary example: ZFS checksumming and scrubbing eliminates bit rot and silent data corruption.
By inference, therefore, ZFS is superior to SnapRAID, further qualification is not necessary, per your rules of logic on this subject: I get to arbitrarily choose a feature, claim it to be important above all others, not qualify the claim in any way, and brand your advice as "bad", also without further qualification.
This logic is self-evidently absurd.
I invite you to recant your "bad advice" claim and state that you merely have a preference/bias for certain features of SnapRAID. Because that is all you have provided.