> If it were a human problem, how could alternatives like Mercurial and Darcs get consistent amounts of praise for their intuitive workflows? Because maybe mer

> If it were a human problem, how could alternatives like Mercurial and Darcs get consistent amounts of praise for their intuitive workflows? Because maybe mercurial's real problems wouldn't show up until people started using it at scale. This is a classic problem that happens time and again. Windows vs. Mac back in 2005: "Windows having malware is a human problem" "If it were a human problem, how could alternatives like Mac get consistent amounts of praise for their lack of malware?" Turns out it's just because Mac didn't have a big enough market share. As soon as it did, Apple could no longer claim that Macs can't get malware because they can and do. Similarly, if you scaled up the number of Mercurial users by several orders of magnitude so that it was now "mainstream", I'm sure some of its lesser known pain points and/or counter intuitive behaviors would start floating up to the top 10 HN stories. But since hardly anyone uses Mercurial vs. Git, that doesn't happen. Just because a minority of users praise something (<insert lesser known language>, <insert lesser known DB>, <insert lesser known VCS>, etc.) doesn't mean if you scaled up the userbase one or more magnitudes it would continue getting that level of praise from all users.