SVN is not only a UI. If you get deeper into how scm's are implemented you should be able to appreciate the differences and tradeoffs between SVN and git. For one, git completely fails at bigger repos. It is just the reality.
In what way does it 'fail' at bigger repos? It was designed to handle the largest and most complex OS repo that exists.
For me the most amazing thing about git is how it is built out of very simple blocks. Each commit or object is a simple hash of it's contents. Which is just brilliant really. That's why it so fast and avoids any potential data corruption.
Re:Why Subversion does not suck
by sandGorgon on Monday August 13, 2012 @12:57PM
(#4376811)
Incorrect. OS repos are miniscule compared to gaming and EDA companies with huge digital assets that need to be versioned as well (insert comments questioning why you would ever need digital asset revisioning with code, here).
The killer "feature" of SVN is partial checkouts. If im not mistaken, perforce and bitkeeper have this feature.
Even if you disliked all the Git UIs, there are some for Hg that are almost exact clones of their subversion counterparts.
Unconvincing.