This sort of rant can and is used in a lot of different contexts. For example, one could rail against using Microsoft Word for web stuff almost with a straight search-and-replace. One could rail against Word for tech documentation with only a few edits.
So, does some underlying flaw, world view or mathematical truth cause the rant similarities? Or is it just proprietary software?
So "Photoshop doesn't work" because new-standards-compatible browsers can create animated content on the fly? Why not compare Photoshop to other ways to create pixel-based, fixed-size graphic images? After all, that's what it's designed for, not standing in for HTML5.
The right tool for the job is HTML, CSS and JavaScript, because the right tool needs to handle structure, style and behavior.
A bitmap image is a poor abstraction for a document (then again, a document is a poor abstraction for an application, but it's going to be a while before we overcome that hurdle).
Title is a bit extreme, yes many elements of web design are now created without the need to photoshop, but I won't conclude that "photoshop doesn't work"
So, does some underlying flaw, world view or mathematical truth cause the rant similarities? Or is it just proprietary software?