Because nearly every argument I've heard against Git has been stupid or just plain wrong. It isn't necessarily true that a person making a stupid argument is stupid, but it seems to be true more often than not.

I am usually aim for something a bit more civil than "you're stupid", but I've certainly thought that very loudly when reading criticisms of Git. I gave a Git talk at a local user group meeting recently. One audience member was deeply upset about "git reset" and how Git should never be used because of that feature. I thought to myself, "I guess you never use the backspace key either." (And of course said, you can easily delete commits with Subversion. svnadmin dump, edit the dump in your text editor, svnadmin load. I have done this to correct bad merges in the past -- deleting commits is much easier than living with a dumb mistake for the rest of my life.)

Anyway, I think my point is that a lot of people are afraid of anything new, and they come up with dumb arguments to convince themselves that the new thing is bad. Git is very new, and version control is a touchy subject, so a lot of bad (and ignorant) arguments come up. It is really sad, actually. When I discover a new way of thinking that makes my life easier, I don't get upset. My life has become more enjoyable... why would I not want that!?

When you find yourself thinking this, it's a good sign that you need to take a step back, take a deep breath, and think a little harder about your opponent's arguments.

Branches (in the sense of SVN, p4, etc) are a subset of the functionality that distributed development entails (local history, cheap copy operations, fast merge, etc). You can get a ton of mileage out of git, hg, etc without any distributed collaborators.

The point remains, branching in SVN is much more expensive. There's no comparison.

Touché.