[mrweasel]

> Hg was notably slower for daily use

There was an interview with Linus Torvalds at some point where he points out that Mercurial was one of the tools he tried using to replace Bitkeeper, but found it to be much to slow. Has he tells it in the interview he later learned that the slowness he experienced was due to a bug in Mercurial and had that not been there, git might never have happened.

If that's true it a little sad, but I also wonder if many of us might still be on SVN, Perforce or whatever. Git, by being a product of Linus brought a lot of focus on Git. Bitkeeper never got the same attention, that was a commercial product, but being used for kernel development didn't see to promote it as much as I'd expect.

[HelloNurse]

Bitkeeper was more or less like Subversion, fast, expensive and slightly complicated; you seem to overestimate the relevance and influence of Linux kernel use for the average corporate decision maker who doesn't care about Linux, doesn't care about distributed VC, doesn't care about performance (because it only affects peons), doesn't like to spend money and doesn't like bleeding edge tools.

[fragmede]

We'll never know. But git being used to manage the Linux Kernel did a lot for its asendency. if Mercurial had been the choice, maybe we'd all be on Hghub instead of Github. Bitkeeper's proprietary status is what dampened enthusiasm there.