I've heard that Git was (maybe is) not fantastic on Windows either (to the point it has to ship its own bundled version of Bash!?)

It's actually pretty horrible but that's not windows' fault. It was designed for case sensitive unix systems with the appropriate ssh infrastructure and other shell tools in place which windows didn't have.

There are some powershell wrappers that make it better.

> It's actually pretty horrible but that's not windows' fault. It was designed for case sensitive unix systems with the appropriate ssh infrastructure and other shell tools in place which windows didn't have.

For me, that's Windows' fault.

Not really. You could write a git client for windows that didn't have these issues.

Yes, I would call those changes workarounds for Windows' bugs (incase-sensitive filesystem, no ssh infrastructure, ...).

One of the reasons Git is slower on Windows, is that spawning processes is a lot slower than on Linux. Wouldn't you call that a bug?

No, because Windows wasn't designed to make Git fast.

It is a bug on Git side if it fails to be platform independent and requires POSIX semantics to function properly.

I wouldn't call "spawning processes isn't slow" or a fast filesystem POSIX semantics.

Windows has built on the premise of multi-threading and a filesystem with rich semantics, not as yet another UNIX clone.

It certainly doesn't have a very good filesystem though. NTFS is horrible on lots of small files due to MFT contention. Even arguing with fstool for a bit doesn't improve it. Check out 50k files on Linux/OSX: 2 mins.. check out 50k files on windows ... 14 mins.

And that's both SSD backed.

It is just that wasn't designed with that specific use case in mind.

But it was designed with file streams, user ACLs, easy integration points across office networks, extensible to virtual devices, and data safety with actual proper locking semantics in mind.

It's just crap at storing files!

It is your point of view, the enterprise among Fortune 500 companies using it as their IT backbone have another point of view.

I work for a Fortune 500 and we don't like it either.

Right, so again, I haven't used it, so I'm going on what I've read, but my understanding is that Mercurial (which is Python based) is much more Windows friendly, and I actually use Mercurial more than Git.

But still, regardless of whose "fault" it is, I couldn't imagine doing dev on a windows machine, some of which is because of the vastly different environment.

Mercurial is much nicer on windows. Git could have been the same but it targeted unix likes to start with and didn't evolve into something even remotely portable for a while.

I use fossil for my own projects. I find that agreeable on all platforms.

It does and some people use it for other purposes like vim. (I do). But now I've switched to WSL for the git part after creator's update since things just work. And some version of vim and neovim also works so for now WSL is like a piece of paradise in GUI prison. But the default Bash for WSL sucks so I use mintty for WSL.(sucks less and supports good colors)