If you want to compare, compare to darcs, mercurial, bazaar, monotone, ... plenty of choice without going back to svn (let alone cvs).
The point I was half-jokingly making was that people don't understand what an extremely powerful tool they have been given and instead complain about shallow stuff that for them is simple to grasp
edit: the way mg, bzr and the rest do the advanced stuff [when available] is basically a carbon copy of git.
I'm a pretty big fan of git, but this is an unproductive stance. I don't know much about bzr, but my impression is that darcs pioneered the ideas that became git-rebase, and elsewhere in this thread people are having substantive discussions about hg (Mercurial; I assume that's what you meant by mg) bookmarks and branches vs git branches: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13229582
Allow me to disagree... Does the CVS or SVN way of doing rebase and filter-branch work with your "mental model"? Well, there is your answer.
> I really wish some tool other than Git had "won" the version-control race; I honestly believe Git to be the worst of the contenders in the most recent generation of version control systems
Not to sound harsh, but why would I want to use an inferior tool just because you don't get git?