Without defending Meg Whitman against some of what is being said here, it is worth noting that she took over as CEO of HP at a time when the company was in crisis, after Leo Apotheker had been ejected following the disastrous period in which he pushed through the Autonomy acquisition ($8.8bn writedown). Apotheker has been appointed following the departure of Mark Hurd who was responsible for a number of acquisitions, including EDS ($8bn writedown) and Palm.
I think it would be fair to say that Whitman was liked more by the workforce at HP than either of those two predecessors. Hurd was detested by many, and, it could be argued, did more to damage the company than any of the other CEOs; Apotheker seemed initially popular, but opinions changed quickly when the results of his decisions were seen. Carly Fiorina's 5-year stint before Hurd had not been seen as a success but at least her HP/Compaq merger resulted in a combination of two companies with some similarities in culture and product lines (which led to a need for rationalization, some of which was done quite quickly and effectively - anyone remember HP Netservers?).
When it came to Meg Whitman's dismemberment of HP, most felt that the knife was run through in the right places, and as the article points out, if one looks at stock price HP Inc has not done badly with its focus on PCs/laptops and printing. The "spin-merge" of HP Enterprise Services (basically what had been EDS) with CSC, to form DXC, also appeared to be a rational as a way for HPE to make an exit from the outsourcing business. Finally, the selling of a lot of software product lines (most of which had been previous acquisitions, including Autonomy and Mercury Interactive) made some sense although HPE continues to buy other software where it is thought to align with the company's strategy (e.g. Zerto, recently).