Sort of? Not that I had a huge emotional connection to him, but he was an OG from the OT. At least show him die with some sad John Williams notes playing. Better than them just saying "Welp, Ackbar is gone" and move right on. Hell, they didn't even need the Holdo character at all; just give all that shit to Ackbar.
That would certainly have worked better. Or Mon Mothma (where's she disappear to?). And while someone might complain about reusing these characters, they weren't as developed in the OT and there is a thematic reason for it to, which I'll address after THIS...
Star Wars fans: "Show some originality! Why is everyone related to everyone! Smallest galaxy ever!"
Also Star Wars fans: "Why did they create that new character, Holdo, they should have just reused Ackbar!"
Star Wars was already the smallest galaxy ever, but when you create a new character - one that is vital to the movie - you can't just debut them with no build-up and expect characters (and the audience) to get on-board.
I had an instructor talk about how in movies we always, as the audience, gravitate towards the comfort of familiarity and actively try and determine who the audience surrogate is. In TLJ scenes on the ship, the audience surrogate is Poe. He is the protagonist of that part of the film, and who is his antagonist? It's Holdo. The audience does NOT KNOW Holdo. She is a new character and the audience surrogate - Poe - does not like her, thus the audience does not like her. Her actions throughout 80% of the film reinforce this negative view of her. It's, of course, revealed that she was not trying to get them all killed and did have a plan, but that doesn't change the fact that 80% of the movie you're with Poe siding against her and hating her, and even if she was proven right, people in general don't like feeling misled or having the wool pulled over their eyes.
Now, replace Holdo with another general we do know. Ackbar. Mon Mothma. Biggs. The change is immediate because the audience DOES know them. They know their history. They know the battles they've fought. They've rooted for them, cheered for them. And now suddenly having one of THEM as the "antagonist" to Poe would make for a far more conflicted audience, because Poe would be the surrogate, while the general's actions - even if they are the SAME actions - are performed with audience being warm to these former legends and heroes and split on whether Poe's actions are warranted or not, instead of being fully with Poe until a late-movie twist.
Even a line or two would have helped. "Holdo fought in the battle of Jakku. I watched her single-handily save a whole fleet with her calm and focused command." Etc, etc. But we don't get that scene, we don't get any hero of the past vouch for her either.
So, as my professor put it, your audience surrogate and your protagonist winds up the accidental villain of his story in contrast to a character painted by the narrative to be wrong the majority of the time until a last-minute swerve. And then he's rewarded with their complete trust and head of command anyway by the end, making the karma not even balance itself out. He had no moment of redemption so his narrative journey is to feel he's the hero, get us on his side, find out his entire journey was misguided, put his friends in danger and get many killed, and is ultimately rewarded for his efforts. That entire arc is difficult to emotionally navigate.
Long rant, having a familiar, heroic face to be the "antagonist" of his story WOULD have worked better because the audience would be more fair and balanced in navigating these emotions and not feeling like their emotional journey through the story has to pause constantly to tell them (the audience) that their emotional state was wrong.