I use Btrfs with Parabola GNU/Linux-libre, a derivative distribution of Arch Linux. I use no snapshot management tools such as Snapper or Timeshift. I keep my system minimal and tidy. Everything is boring and predictable. I do not bork my system by mistake, except when something breaks after an odd update, usually once or twice per year. When it happens, I find a workaround (usually something needs to be downgraded) and file a bug report if there is none.
When I need to tinker with something that can possibly go out of control, like installing a new package for a program that I want to try out and I am not sure I will want to keep it, I take a snapshot of my current “pristine” system and boot into it. In the snapshot copy of my system I do all the dirty stuff I want to try out. When I am satisfied with my findings, I reboot into the main subvolume and delete the snapshot.
It seems to me that most people use Btrfs snapshots preemptively in case of unexpected failure. I use snapshots exactly when I know I am going to do something that can lead to instability or «OS rot». Am I the only one using Btrfs snapshots like this?
That sounds fine, but isn’t this also what LXC is for?
It could be a sensible approach, but with a snapshot I am free to tinker with every aspect of the system knowing that I can revert everything with a reboot.
Which is exactly how the normal flow of snapshots work too. Except no initial reboot to start tinkering