I think these articles are meant for casual users and programmer, which greatly outnumber desktop publishing/artistic users. No one has claimed with a straight face that gimp will let you replace photoshop overnight.
The author of the article above plays on the ambiguity between hobbyist and professional:
> I stopped using Adobe Photoshop and switched to GIMP for all my personal photography projects. This wasn’t the impossible task that most people believe it is.
> I spend about 90% of my time in Lightroom and only 10% in Photoshop. This is the same for many other professionals
But closes the argument with:
> For the reduced role that Photoshop now plays in many photographers’ workflows, GIMP is surprisingly capable.
People who work "day in and day out" with a product, are typically a minority on those discussions. Here's another: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7485643 - the opinion is clearcut like the parent's (ie. no way GIMP can replace Photoshop).
On the other hand, there certainly is a range on the spectrum where people can reasonably use GIMP. But at the very least, the idea of "GIMP can replace Photoshop" should be qualified precisely by the use case.
