Lisp is a family of languages, so how can there be a single standard implementation? If he means Common Lisp, well, CL is a standardized programming language; is there a de facto C implementation? how about C++? Of course not! GCC is the most widely available implementation, but you would be foolish to write GCC-dependent C code.
SBCL is not harder to install than GCC, in fact, it's trivial to install and upgrade (compared to the nightmare that is a libc upgrade) but you don't see people complaining about C being hard to install or lacking a canonical implementation.
But people do write GCC-dependent code. In fact, they will even write GCC version dependent code, to the tune of "this will not compile correctly with GCC 4.x.x, you will need to use 2.95.26.2.3.5.1"
And given that the complaint was specifically levelled against Ruby, for the most part, it seems to be making one specific point:
If your language is specified by the existence of a single reference implementation, and you keep changing that reference implementation, then that's equivalent to the language continually changing, which is a fair criticism, I think, particularly when it breaks backwards compatibility or continually deprecates features used in production code (requiring an endless cycle of rewrites, or maintenance of some older branch of the implementation). This sort of behaviour would certainly strike me as "annoying", but that's essentially what you get when you commit yourself to using a product which makes no attempts to standardise, and which lacks large commercial customers who would place pressure on the software vendor to keep backwards-compatibility as a priority.
SBCL is not harder to install than GCC, in fact, it's trivial to install and upgrade (compared to the nightmare that is a libc upgrade) but you don't see people complaining about C being hard to install or lacking a canonical implementation.