Of course it changes the meaning! Titles are incredibly dense with information, and are probably orders of magnitude more important in shaping how the article is read and commented on than any sentence in the actual article. Even subtle changes will have a major impact. That's kind of why clickbait is a thing in the first place :)
"Use" is imperative; the title is outright commanding the reader to do this, with the implication that it's simply always the right choice with no tradeoffs. Since very few things in engineering come without tradeoffs, it primes the reader into a combative mood. "You don't get to tell me what to do, Red Hat! For my program, code simplicity and portability matter more than performance, we're not going to use io_uring. You're stupid for suggesting otherwise, and I'm not reading your stupid article."
A "why you should use ..." title has at least some nuance, despite being a clickbait trope. The article will be explaining the benefits of using io_uring for network IO will be useful, and the situations where those benefits actually materialize. But despite being an advocacy piece, it'll also tell you why you should not use it. Either explicitly, or by omission when the stated benefits are irrelevant to you.
The other obvious variants that would work for this article:
1. "Using ..." would promise a tutorial, a formal case study, or an informal account of somebody using it. The bulk of this article is a tutorial, so it'd be pretty reasonable.
2. "Benefits of ..." would be a straight up advocacy piece just like "use" but since it's not written as imperative, it wouldn't antagonize the reader as much.
3. "When should you use ..." would be a neutral review of the pros and cons, with emphasis on the scenarios where the tradeoffs favor each of the alternatives
"Use" is imperative; the title is outright commanding the reader to do this, with the implication that it's simply always the right choice with no tradeoffs. Since very few things in engineering come without tradeoffs, it primes the reader into a combative mood. "You don't get to tell me what to do, Red Hat! For my program, code simplicity and portability matter more than performance, we're not going to use io_uring. You're stupid for suggesting otherwise, and I'm not reading your stupid article."
A "why you should use ..." title has at least some nuance, despite being a clickbait trope. The article will be explaining the benefits of using io_uring for network IO will be useful, and the situations where those benefits actually materialize. But despite being an advocacy piece, it'll also tell you why you should not use it. Either explicitly, or by omission when the stated benefits are irrelevant to you.
The other obvious variants that would work for this article:
1. "Using ..." would promise a tutorial, a formal case study, or an informal account of somebody using it. The bulk of this article is a tutorial, so it'd be pretty reasonable.
2. "Benefits of ..." would be a straight up advocacy piece just like "use" but since it's not written as imperative, it wouldn't antagonize the reader as much.
3. "When should you use ..." would be a neutral review of the pros and cons, with emphasis on the scenarios where the tradeoffs favor each of the alternatives