Too bad the article doesn't talk about performance vs NTFS. Any quick and dirty comparative benchmark would have been nice. But then again, If BTRFS had been slower than NTFS it could have been due to a suboptimal (re)implementation.
I don't recall it particularly ranty, though.
I chose the word because I remembered it being a bit rant-adjacent ("we're used to doing it this way, ... but windows does it that way"). But it's been a while since I watched it (not particularly attentively either, to be honest). That's just what stuck.
The readwrite driver is new, but it always had an older readonly driver too, which would be fine for benchmarking.
Back in 2011 Tuxera's proprietary Linux NTFS driver was maybe faster than ext as well: https://www.phoronix.com/news/OTU5Ng
On Linux/ext4, it takes an eternity for an enumeration to even start returning results and the entire OS gets stuck on IO while doing so.
But this isn't an "NTFS problem" as you'll have this occur on any filesystem that supports file system filters, like antivirus.
I cant remember the linux results... not that it matters, as I avoid NTFS writes on linux like the plague, even with the new kernel driver. Just this year, I tried trusting it for a little while, and linux ntfs killed an entire backup HDD by corrupting the partition table :/.
Mounting NTFS as read only is OK though.