The issue isn't about the == operator returning false. It's about the == operator's return value not being typed.

Evaluating "a == a" could return the string "potatoe" which would evaluate to false (and make no sense).

I don't see the big deal with this. If your == operator is buggy, it's buggy, no matter whether you can only return a boolean or some random other type.

(I personally found most of the criticism in the article to be in the same vein: inflammatory, superficial comments after a quick reading of the spec.)