Well, part of his criticism is that the UI is woefully inconsistent with regards to "upwards" navigation. If you navigate to a resource via the resource group, you can navigate back "up" to the parent RG. If you nagivate to the resource from the home screen, IIRC, you cannot. That's the criticism.
Yes, RG's are a pretty killer feature, and trying to understand the organization of resources in GCP is hard by comparison, and an utter nightmare in AWS. I'm not sure why he's knocking that. (And … GCP requires projects, which seem equivalent to the complaint against RGs.)
… that said … there are so many other things utterly and horrifically wrong with Azure that I wouldn't put them on a pedestal for resource groups. As much as I do like RGs.
(Also, "A resource group is literally just a folder" sigh, no, because they're not hierarchical. Azure goofed hard there.)
Yes, RG's are a pretty killer feature, and trying to understand the organization of resources in GCP is hard by comparison, and an utter nightmare in AWS. I'm not sure why he's knocking that. (And … GCP requires projects, which seem equivalent to the complaint against RGs.)
… that said … there are so many other things utterly and horrifically wrong with Azure that I wouldn't put them on a pedestal for resource groups. As much as I do like RGs.
(Also, "A resource group is literally just a folder" sigh, no, because they're not hierarchical. Azure goofed hard there.)