Well I remember MS Sourcesafe being popular a few years ago.
Do hg people "share less" or are there simply less of them? IIRC github allows commits from hg as well as git.
And of course not everyone (in fact possibly only the minority) is interested in cloning and issuing pull requests on OSS a huge amount of programming happens internally in corporations where everyone will use whichever VCS is mandated.
it is bitbucket the one that allows both hg and git. Github only allows git
Patently and laughably false.
I'd like to know your grounds for saying svn was "forgotten". Forgotten by who?
Subversion is used by very few remaining public projects, almost entirely for legacy reasons. Almost literally zero "recent" projects are using it at all. It has no more mind share than does CVS at this point, and "no one" uses CVS (again, except for a few legacy spots). I really didn't think that was controversial.
Subversion was indeed a much better CVS than CVS. And the world almost jumped on it as a standard. But then git appeared. If you were a young person looking at building exciting projects from source, you might never have reason to learn svn. I think that qualifies as "forgotten"
I think we're at odds because I'm thinking of developers in general and you are focused on open source work. I don't have stats, but I'd be willing to bet that a majority of code being written is closed source even today. I think this is worth remembering in any discussion about source control.
And I'm not saying you should choose git because it's better. I'm saying git "won" in the community because it was the choice of people who want to play in the community. Culture matters, and hg's proponents, for whatever reason, are less likely to want to share their stuff.