They do, but this is misleading due to a number of caveats
First one is that they don't use btrfs own RAID (aka btrfs-raid/volume management). They actually use hardware RAID so they don't experience any of the stability/data integrity issues people experience with btrfs-raid. Ontop of this, facebooks servers run in data centers that have 100% electricity uptime (these places have diesel generators for backup electricity)
Synology likewise offers btrfs on their NAS, but its underneath mdadm (software RAID)
The main benefit that Facebook gets from btrfs is transparent compression and snapshots and thats about it.
FDE with ZFS is kind of fighting the way things are meant to be done with ZFS. ZFS allows encryption on a per dataset/zvol basis which is the officially recommended way to do encryption (see https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/06/a-quick-start-guide-...)
iirc, btrfs has fixed the issues with raid 5/6 but it requires a breaking change to the on disk format which means you have to create an entirely new partition and copy the data over (you cannot update an existing partition to it). This new on disk format also needs its own testing.
Your point raid 5/6 not being tested heavily by actual users is entirely on point, those enterprise heavy users are only running RAID 10 like configurations.
If you want RAID 5/6, just use ZFS as they have solved all of these issues. I don't know if its due to sheer luck or maybe the fact is that Sun at its time was actually running RAID 5/6 in production (hard drives were not as cheap back then as they are now)?
The author was using Gnome, which is meant to be the most mature Wayland implementation given its developed by Redhat which is also the same company that is the biggest driver of Wayland protocol.
I have a news flash for you, the situation with extensions in Wayland is ten times worse than X11. Wayland requires an extension for what used to be considered basic functionality in a desktop environment.
It most definitely can be because the design of the protocol can force a bound on how performant it can be. While its true that certain implementations of HTTP can be faster or slower, even the best implementations of HTTP 1.1 (for example) are quite slow when you compare it to the alternatives.
I know this because I worked at a place which was entirely based around microservices using Rest HTTP as the protocol/interface, some teams had to use alternate methods because HTTP protocol was the bottleneck.
> AFAICT, open source software has a better security track record, in general.
iirc Studies was done on this and there was no measurable difference in security issues when it comes to open vs closed source.
Just because the code is visible doesn't mean much, as you need to have the right eyes to actually notice security issues and a lot of open source projects don't have this.
Also closed source projects have the advantage where if they have a massive company behind them, that company has the resources (i.e. $$$) to hire highly specialised people to look the security of the software. Open source projects usually don't have such resources, heartbleed and xz are indicative of that.
While this is definitely an issue, ironically we may get to a point at some time where subpixel rendering becomes less and less useful, for reasons aside from pixel density.
As you know, subpixel rendering only works when you have a very specific display (i.e. LCD) since it takes advantage of, and hence relies on precise characteristics of how the pixels are physically laid out in the display.
This means that subpixel rendering fails to work on displays that have different layouts, the most recent example of this have been newer OLED displays (I think QD-OLED) which has a different pixel arrangement and then you ironically had Windows users complaining that the text looked jagged (although you are able to change the algorithm for subpixel rendering to match the QD-OLED, the unfortunate problem here is that its not really possible for this to work all for applications as it depends on which UI engine you are using, Windows is a giant mess here).
Long story short, I can see why Mac removed sub pixel rendering, its basically a workaround that reflected a time when you had less dense displays which were all LCD and had the same physical layout. Nowadays though high pixel density displays are a lot more common and then you don't need sub pixel rendering at all (and it works with all of the different physical pixel layout arrangements)