SVN consists of mostly weaknesses while Git consists of mostly strengths. Developers are more productive with Git. Seen it many times over. In big SVN shops, most likely you will find the clueful devs using Git frontends to SVN so they don't waste their time fighting with the VCS.

+1 Funny. Spoken well and truly as someone who only knows SVN and its ilk.

Git is full of appalling bad usability decisions. Like requiring git commit -a, which for Mercurial would just be hg commit as a sane person would expect. Git fans spout a bunch of drivel about "staging area" to justify it, but it can't be justified. Warts like this are strictly a geek endurance test, to learn where your pain threshold is. If it is sufficiently high then you are cut out to be a Git nerd forever.

Mind you, Git is wonderful compared to Subversion which just can't do the things you need to do.

Mercurial matches Git in functionality and performance, but completely blows it away in terms of usability and elegant design. Without the Linus factor, everybody would be using Mercurial, not Git. I tend to use Mercurial a lot anyway. One weird and useful thing I do with Mercurial is make a Mercurial repository inside a Git repository, to track files I don't want in the Git repo but still want to track and keep in the same directory.

Versus Subversion where you *can't* rebase. Instead, just let everything degenerate to the point where contributors habitually build up massive diffs that conflict with every other team member, interspersed with episodes of panicked committing, build breakage and mutual recrimination just before planned release dates. Been there.

Ooh gotcha, despicable Apple astromod.

I like Microsoft the way it is, slowly choking on its own bile.

Modern anti-trust is mainly based on "market power". Apple qualifies easily.

I didn't bother with the fourth terminator after being thoroughly underwhelmed by the third. I will pass on this one too, I won't pay money to see a wrinkly flabby terminator.