Well, as I said, I have no personal experience with the Fusion technology, which makes it rather futile to argue in depth about its merits and faults. Obviously, the Fusion drive (or at least its marketing) is mainly aimed at īconsumerī users, who want a fast and easy-to-use Mac for their intended use. Nothing wrong with that; it is exactly my own attitude towards my car...
And most of MacWorldīs contents is primarily aimed at that market segment, too. For all I know, the Fusion may be a gift from heaven for them.
My own conclusion, based on my previous experience, plus reading up the subject from more deeply going sources like ArsTechnica and Lloyd, is that the technique is simply an unnecessary complication for me and my needs, also one that leaves me with far less control than I like. Space on a modern SSD isnīt THAT limited and expensive, so some informed deliberation over what goes where will leave one with an SSD system volume with enough free space to run well, plus a HD volume for the rest, a volume rather seldom accessed, and thus mainly silent (the HD portion of a Fusion drive gets up and running for each and every R/W operation to that logical volume, even if only the SSD is involved; something that never happens with my present setup). And, in case either the SSD or the HD goes belly-up, I have only one volume to restore; the Fusion goes bust in its entirety. Obviously, backups, or disk clones are important in either case, but the task of getting back up is simpler with separate volumes.
Like most decisions, mine may prove wrong. But I canīt see I risk very grave consequences if it does; itīs like getting a manual gearbox for a car instead of an automatic one (which happens to be my choice for my own car): itīs just a tiny bit more footwork - but far more control.