[albertcardona]

The nice part is that with git, one can interact with svn projects seamlessly via git-svn -- so endless local commits may be repacked to one single remote commit or push.

But svn lacks suh flexibility to interact with others. Hence git > svn, as in svn is a tiny subset of git.

[artificer]

It's not so simple. For example, if I remember correctly,git lacks a way to checkout and work on a small subset of a development tree, as it tracks whole trees at a time. This feature is something that svn and cvs offered long ago. To do that with git you have to break the tree into small sub-trees, as the X.org guys have done. This may be considered as a drawback for some people.

For more information on why git was not chosen instead of svn for FreeBSD you can look at http://wiki.freebsd.org/VCSWhy

Again, each vc has it's uses, and nothing is merely a 'subset' of another.