No, fuck that. Forking is awesome. When the people managing a project, he mentions GNOME, that's a good example, when those people get their heads too far up their asses and no longer serve the interests of the people who actually USE their software, forking lets us take back control by making an entirely new project without their shitty management. Is he really arguing that projects like MATE and Cinnamon are somehow bad things? Because a substantial number of users would disagree, and many developers, too.
Likewise, OpenSSL is a huge mess. The folks at OpenBSD have a track record of doing shit right and making it very secure (some would say to a fault, but this is supposed to be core software used to secure nearly every web server on the internet, I don't think there's such a thing as "too secure"). Their philosophy is perfect for a project like this, and I think their OpenSSL fork, if it ever branches out from being OpenBSD-specific, will probably be a lot better than the original.
Obviously, forking has other uses, as well. Sometimes someone just wants to take the software in a different direction that's outside of the scope of the original project. That's perfectly fine. I don't know if he's implying that's a bad thing, but if he is, fuck that. He's wrong.
I agree with his overall philosophy that GNU/Linux has some good and some bad shit about it. That's to be expected, it's not perfect, and we absolutely do need to acknowledge the suckage. But forking is a good thing, not part of that suckage, and it pisses me off that he would even insinuate that it's a bad thing. Now, the fact that things so often get to the point where forking is necessary, that is most definitely suckage.