In short: Yes.
Digital has indeed caught up with film for the vast majority of users. From a resolution perspective, 2 MB will give fine 4x6 pictures, and 4 MB will yield very good 8x10's, and even impressive 20x30 poster prints (albeit not tack-sharp close-up). So the issues are more subtle, revolving around other characteristics of digital cameras, and the "workflow" of digital photography, especially how one displays and stores the images. These considerations are what these articles are about, mostly.
My personal answer to this question is: Yes, but really only from the perspective of an amateur 35mm negative shooter, and with the physically larger, lower-noise sensors found in digital SLR's, and using a RAW workflow. The more typical smaller sensors found in compact digital cameras have good resolution, and are fine for everyday pictures, but for more critical work, suffer from noise and dynamic range limitations relative to film. While most professional news and sports photography has "gone digital", fine-arts and larger-format photographers still have very valid reasons to use film.
This question may be obsolete for most people; digital is certainly the default choice these days.
The real issue is digital vs. film, whether you currently have a film-based camera or not. While both are for taking still pictures, they feel like rather different media in practice. To some extent, it depends on your desired product: electronic images for web pages, or paper prints (or slides for traditional projection, which has practically disappeared by now).
This is not an absolute distinction. There are various ways of getting electronic images from film: scanning from photos, or preferably, from the negatives or slides themselves using a dedicated film scanner, or most conveniently, getting your photo store or mail-order photo processor to scan the film onto CD-ROM.
And there are various ways to get prints from digital cameras: either printing them yourself on a "photo-quality" inkjet printer, or getting real photographic prints from one of the online outfits and an increasing number of retail outlets.
There are other less obvious interesting differences, in my experience:
To digress a bit, one of the most significant differences in the actual user experience of different types of cameras, at least to me, is their viewing systems. Over the years, I'm most used to a 35mm single-lens-reflex (SLR) viewfinder image, which is a large, bright, and clear ground-glass image that helps one visualize what the final picture will be like. One also typically has ancillary information like shutter speed and aperture immediately available around the viewing image. The LCD screens on consumer digital cameras are somewhat similar, which is perhaps a reason why I like them.
I've also used rangefinder cameras a bit, and this is a very different experience. The "see-through" viewfinders of consumer digital cameras give you a small, relatively inaccurate, but accessible image in situations where the LCD isn't that great, such as strong lighting on the screen. Even a top-quality optical viewfinder, such as in a Leica M, just doesn't look as much like the final picture. It does have its advantages though: you can see stuff outside the frame, so can anticipate what's going to happen. And in some situations, like candid or street photography, you feel closer to or more in the action, whereas an SLR viewing image gives you a somewhat more objective or detached stance, like looking at a picture of the subject rather than the subject itself.
And then there is completely different stuff, like "look-down" roll-film single- or twin-lens reflex (TLR) cameras, with laterally reversed images which make following action pretty painful, or even large-format view cameras, with bidimensionally-reversed images! And yes, there are digital backs for these, but now we're wandering pretty far afield...
Copyright Richard Schooler, 2001-2008 firstname.lastname@example.org