Saying "the author failed" is easy. Presenting a case that demonstrates so is not. What I said is that they are basically the same, except for the handling of

Saying "the author failed" is easy. Presenting a case that demonstrates so is not. What I said is that they are basically the same, except for the handling of branches, not history rewriting as you suggest. I assume you agree that they are basically the same, now, if you disagree that the handling of branches is superior in git, feel free to add a comment in my blog, but after 160 comments, nobody has managed to contradict that conclusion. So no, nobody has managed to prove where exactly is the bias. It is possible that git is superior, and that's what the evidence suggests.