I think this explains a lot of the initial popularity of git and github. Wanting to be like the cool kids, and git knowledge being seen as somehow "elite" back then.
But given that initial popularity, it seems likely to me that network effects mostly explain its growth in usage from there. Convergence on a single revision control tool/site/representation/api/etc is probably inevitable, in the same way that there is basically a single social network (ie Facebook).
The big advantage of git is github and co, not git itself. By switching and using mercurial you lose all of the advantages of github too.
The irony is I use git for all my projects, too, due to the network effect. It's vastly easier to go with the flow rather than swim against the tide. But every time I have to wrestle with un-fucking git's state I find myself considering my life choices and how I got there :(
cough Fossil cough
I think you can pay as low as 2 dollars a month to use SourceHut.
Yeah, but saying that here a few years ago got you lynched.
I've seen teams evaluate multiple revision systems before starting projects and each one has decided on Mercurial based on its technical merits.
I'll take it on trust that git is a perfect solution for linux kernel development, but the number of teams who work the same way as them is a rounding error from zero. I see people on here complaining about cargo-culting from the cool kids (k8s, spotify's team structures, etc., ect.), but I see git as exactly the same.
I don't want to have to spend time understanding how my editor handles lines in memory in order to use it, why should I have to spend time understanding how my revision control system treats revisions?
Tech is hard enough without having to sink time in to unnecessarily complicated tools that can bite you in the bum really hard.