1) Stop manually backing up versions, that's error-prone. Use RCS!
2) Stop using RCS, it doesn't scale. Use CVS!
3) Stop using CVS, it's too complicated. Use SVN!
4) Stop using SVN, it makes it hard to merge branches. Use Hg/GIT!
... And someday, we'll be saying 5) Stop using Hg/GIT. They ________. Use _______!
Same thing for hardware, and languages, and frameworks... and just about everything. shrug
Hg and git are different. It's not like SVN has a bug "it isn't distributed". It is fundamentally not distributed. So the progression is:
1. Stop manually backing up versions, it sucks. Use RCS/CVS/SVN.
2. Stop using RCS/CVS/SVN, they suck. Use git/Hg.
I can easily imagine a new DVCS system that would fix bugs in git or Hg. The git UI sucks for example. But I can't easily imagine a fundamentally different successor to DVCS.
(Not that such a successor won't happen - of course it will. I just can't imagine what it will look like).
It's much easier for a new entrant (startups) to innovate because they don't have the same baggage.
But that doesn't change my statement.
If you're not willing to break your business to change with the times, someone else will--and by the time you react it's too late.
http://www.onlykent.com/20100318/blockbuster-bankruptcy-2010...
In VCSes more than in regular software, you really have to get the design right very early in the process.
Similarly, in the case of changing mental models, most users and even developers of X won't be ready for Y when you write it. Trying to force the change onto those people will harm X and handicap acceptance of Y by confusing the Case For Y with the Case Against Killing X.
So it's hardly surprising.
The full quote makes it clearer:
"Subversion = Leeches. Mercurial and Git = Antibiotics. We have better technology now." (emphasis his).