So, let me restate my argument (which I suspect you may still disagree with - but hopefully this time you'll disagree with what I actually meant to claim...)
The main complaint that I have heard about git is that its command line is an incoherent inconsistent unusable mess. My opinion is that is true, it perceived to be a much bigger problem than in really is - there are lots of CLI alternatives to working with git, and their use is negligible compared to actual git CLI use. Therefore, I suspect, a perfect git CLI would not have made a big difference in adoption.
The other thing is git is incredibly flexible. Almost no one uses all the options, but much like Microsoft Word, everyone uses a different 20%. And I suspect any system with this level of flexibility is likely to be complex. Which is not to say git is at an optimum; only to say that there's a reason there's not an accepted "perfect" CLI (for git or another VCS) - inherent complexity associated with flexibility.
Evidence? Using my own anecdotal evidence, I strongly disagree.
I checked volume for GUI-related keywords[1] against CLI-related keywords[2].
The GUI-related keywords get ~34,000 searches per month. The CLI-related keywords get ~4,500. My methodology and data aren't perfect, but it's something at least.
Your premises are:
And your argument is: Your first premise is just wrong. People use complicated things all the time because they don't know about simpler things. People also often think things are simple and then use them wrong. In my experience, a LOT of people use git wrong/dangerously.I've addressed your second premise above. There isn't (and may never be) good data there, though.
[1] git gui; smartgit; git client; git tower; github gui; git frontend
[2] git command; git "command line"; git cli