> Documentation certainly is not gold standard. I'm a former doc tree committer, familiar with many of the bugs …

As "a former doc tree committer", I am sure you are aware that no set of documentation artifacts are without error of some sort. To be exact, you provided two examples of your identifying what you believe to be same.

I stand by my statement that the cited FreeBSD resources are "a gold standard" while acknowledging they are not perfect. What they are, again in my humble opinion, is vastly superior to what I have found to exist in the Linux world. Perhaps your experience contradicts this position; if so, I respect that.

Arch Linux wiki is the gold standard and better than FreeBSD.

Arch Wiki can't never cover a userland+kernel documentation by design. FreeBSD does. Arch it's utterly lacking in tons of areas. Forget proper sysctl documentation. Say goodbye to tons of device settings' documentation. Forget iptables/NFT's documentatiton on par of PF.

I don't agree about that ZFS issue. Using whole disk isn't inheritantly wrong. When you have data pool separated from boot disks, using whole disks is better. No need to create partition table, when replacing disk. No worring over block alignment.