I think there are numerous aspects to this question.
With print, the dynamic range (DR) is about 7 f-stops, with digital images (TIFF, DNG, etc.) the dynamic range is effectively limitless, but the output medium (photo frames, computer screens) has about 9 f-stops(?) - I'm guessing here and don't honestly know, but presume the range is higher as it is a emissive medium(rather than reflective, like print).
So, given the higher dynamic range, and hence the greater amount of information conveyed in the digital image, I'd rather have someone share the digital version than the print version (you can scan the print version, but with the lost DR you might be missing out). Also, there is the advantage of more flexibility in the future viewing (can get it printed, or share on flickr, or view in the electronic photo frames, etc.). So, the digital version contains more info and can be used more flexibly.
However, if you want to decorate your house, there's no finer option than a nice big print. And if you want to share with local friends, you don't have to power up the PC/Mac/whatever to see them. Nor do you have the problems of making sure the monitor/tv/eFrame is properly calibrated, what you see is what you get. Also, the print is greener - it doesn't require power to view it...assuming a reasonable amount of ambient light. It's also easier on the eyes than a monitor. It will also be easy to view in 100 years (assuming it's on good paper, inks, etc.)
In the long run, I'd say that a print is far more convenient for every day to day viewing; but the digital version has more flexibility. I think the hardcopy will be sticking around for a while, and I'll miss it if it meets its demise.
As for the photographers that are going back to the original methods, well...it's something to do. There will always be the individual that either wants to experiment, or has that eccentricity.