Getting handed a background like that really irks me. I can understand a DM barring some concepts to fit into the world and to work with the player on suggestions or requirement so the character, but to take it out of the players hands like that really bothers me.
Of course, having a character die can suck, especially in the scenario described and if you did invest into the character. The reaction described seems quite immature to me though. If you are going to play these games where death is a possibility, you should be well aware that your character is not immortal and made need to be replaced if killed. I can also understand as a DM that plotting around a particular character and then having that character die can cause issues, but as with the above you should already be aware that characters can die, so you should either be having those plots on the side or not be writing your plot in that fashion. If you must have the plot, you can always fudge rolls to keep stuff like crits one shotting characters (within reason of course), I suspect most DMs already fudge things when needed already. These are not problems with the game, but with players.
The article seems to imply that having an attachment to a character is a bad thing, but I disagree. Investment into a character at least for myself motivates me to roleplay my character and do something with them. If I had a character background just handed off to me and my character is otherwise just a pile of stats I rolled and class I chose, I can't imagine myself getting terribly invested into the game.
Now I can understand wanting to have a lighthearted game where you just want to kill some monsters, solve some puzzles, etc, without worrying about some grand background and goal for the characters involved, but it is not an issue otherwise as long as the people playing are mature enough for it (which isnt a tall order).