It's simple logic, really: 1. distributed version control systems (dvcs) are a lot more complex than people think they are. (This is anecdotal/personal, but a

It's simple logic, really: 1. distributed version control systems (dvcs) are a lot more complex than people think they are. (This is anecdotal/personal, but a _lot_ of blogs and complaints I read about git primarily boil down to complaints that are intrinsic to dvcs. It's not possible to do any better unless you either drop support for important features or come up with a novel and creative solution that somehow makes things easier to understand without losing any power. I'm not sure such an 'easier but just as powerful' model exists). In other words, lots of these complaints sound like 'the pizzas at this restaurant are crap' but the actual problem is that the complainer simply fundamentally dislikes round things, and they've misplaced most of the blame. Not something a restaurant can fix without reimagining pizzas. 2. The really easy to understand systems (such as cvs / svn) are too simple and can't do many important things, so those aren't suitable replacements. 3. Because dvcs is hard and git is the de-facto standard, in order to 'shop around' and use something else (or, build something better), you'd first need to fully understand all the particular principles of dvcs. 4. If you don't bother to learn all that or aren't capable, then you won't do a good job on finding another dvcs or building one yourself. You can't rely on outside advice - you won't be able to follow the reasoning, and you can't rely on appeal to popularity (as git is the popular choice). 5. If you DO bother to learn all that, you'll understand git so there isn't actually any reason. There is very little you'd want to do with a dvcs that git cannot do. Git's shortcomings can be solved by writing tutorials, front-ends to it, and setting up a model ('we develop features like this, we sign off on commits like this, this is how we name our tags, etc'). Not by writing something else.