Basically it boils down to "I want Smart Objects and Gimp doesn't have them and I don't like the solution they are working on".
The rest is about the discussion he had on Twitter and someone said and someone else argued and there was a link and I read it and... It feels like one of those stupid reaction videos but in written form.
Look, use whatever tool you want, but stop pretending like you get to decide if others get to recommend tools or not.
I would personally prefer to just use Gimp, but I'm not really a graphic designer by any means, which also makes justifying the costs of Photoshop for me silly.
Sidenote: Aren't there other pieces of software that match more things that Photoshop is better at than GIMP? I have heard praises for Krita, but I assume it depends on use case.
Some of us see decadence driving many features on mature graphics applications, coupled with rentseeking on 30 year old code. If it's NOT 30 year old code, why is it seeking to replace funcioning code? Rentseeking.
I find GIMP satisfactory for my remaining raster graphic needs. I prefer vector graphics applications for anything that is not a photograph...