Earlier quoted context omitted.
this is a terrible analogy, its more like 'i can't drive this car if i don't do an engine rebuild myself - maybe i'll drive this car that already works the way i want' tbh, i started a place they used git, i started learning it but nobody already there knew a damned thing about it and they should have been using it at all. they used it because it was more popular, despite having history with mercurial. we now use mer…
Engine rebuild of git? You mean "learn how to use it" . If you want to go with a car analogy, then it is more like you are going to keep on driving one car because you don't know how to drive the other. Git isn't broken just because you don't know how to use it.
That is a lame cop-out. Git has a terrible, terrible user interface. Its documentation is equally terrible. Git apologists are nearly as silly as Javascript apologists.
A distributed source control system does not intrinsically have to be as error-prone and obscure and arbitrary as git. The fact that git fanboys can't see this is either a lack of introspection or a lack of imagination, or both.
My favorite example is the fact that "checkout", arguably the single most common source control command, will irrevocably and silently destroy local changes. Those with more time and more hate on their hands have written volumes about this[1], but for me, I find that plenty of very talented devs I know really do not care for git, and suffer its numerous deficiencies because it is the flavor du jour (and because of Github).