I pitched my comment towards differences for the users, as that's what this Slashdot article is querying. The difference to actual development is, as you've quite rightly pointed out, zero - which is at it should be. Your developers have created a launchable product, it's only up to the business to decide if it's an appropriate time to launch the product or not - it's none of the developers concern.
When talking about "the non-agile alternative" I'm afraid I should have specified "the classic waterfall method".
The way I've used agile is not to have multiple iterative launches of a product, but to have multiple iterative points where you *have* a launchable product. The advantage of Agile isn't constantly churning out crumb-like updates to freaked-out users, it's being able to say on any given week "we could launch with X feature set now if we had to, and have Y feature set still to build" rather than the non-agile alternative which is "it doesn't work but we are 30% towards completing it".
This enables you to be able to set a firm launch date and be able to meet it with a working product. You can either chose to launch iterative updates afterwards, or just stick with what you launched and move onto a different project - whatever the business decides.
In reference to the summary: if there is no process, you are doing Agile wrong. If your developers are overwriting each others work, you are using SVN wrong. Neither of these are inherent problems with Agile, you're just being incompetent - and there is no methodology to overcome incompetence.
Take care of the luxuries and the necessities will take care of themselves. -- Lazarus Long