The article isn't as anti-git as the title might lead you to believe. I enjoyed the article for the research and up-voted it. I use and like git, but the idea

The article isn't as anti-git as the title might lead you to believe. I enjoyed the article for the research and up-voted it. I use and like git, but the ideas of silent data loss is scary (as it spreads). Long story below. However, if you want real fun try out what one centralized repository did for me once. I was (against my will) using Visual Source Safe in the 1990s (ick ick ick). Visual Source Safe at the time represented its data on a server with two RCS style history files (called a and b). When you committed both of these were updated (no idea why there were two) and then as a matter of policy Visual Source Safe re-wrote your local content from the repository. That is on a check-in: it wrote back over your stuff. Fast forward to the day the disk filled up on the server and a single check-in attempt corrupted a and b (so even if redundancy was the reason for 2 file, it didn't work) and the the server stayed enough up to force overwrite my local content. Everything lost for the files in question (no history, no latest version, no version left on my system, forget about even worrying about recent changes). Off to tape backups and polling colleagues to see if we could even approximate the lost source code.