My response was to your sarcastic mini dialog above my reply. Do not try to read other peoples minds - it is impossible, and if you really want to, you can simp

My response was to your sarcastic mini dialog above my reply. Do not try to read other peoples minds - it is impossible, and if you really want to, you can simply ask. >> It does the job Linus designed it to do, but that job is not most software engineers across the world need it to do. Speak for yourself, you are not most software engineeers. >>In smaller or in corporate shops, Subversion was almost adequate ... I have administered SVN profesionally for several years (2005-2007), and was paid to unfuck screwups made by other developers using it (which many times involved restoring from incremental hourly backups done on the SVN server side). Dealing and helping others with their git problems is many times easier. The FAANG world (which I had to google just now) I imagine has unique requirements (many teams that must coordinate, super gigantic legacy source code base), and the resources to do whatever they want (money, humans to develop and maintain tools and do research). For them, the integration pain from managing multiple smaller repos may be significant. Outside this world however, teams are more independant and the source code size is much much smaller (even for legacy projects). >> Git won because tech is a popularity contest You have a point here, but this factor (and network effects in general) is just inertia, and does not explain why git won, given that for example SVN or Perforce had such a head start (in tooling, and in mindshare), and there were other distributed contenders like mercurial and darcs and BitKeeper developed at aproximately the same time, and even earlier. It won in my opinion because it was simply superior tech - faster, good enough and very very easy to get started. (edited to clean up formatting)