> once in a while, we get stuck with a de facto standard that's actually quite good in its category. I happen to thing git is one of those.
I agree that git is pretty nice, and ubiquity is an important feature. For example, if you choose git you'll find loads of tooling, documentation, infrastructure, etc. that supports it. If you encounter a problem using it, there's almost certainly a fix or a detailed "won't fix" explanation in a blog post or on StackOverflow.
> I'm happy with git. You should be too.
Making git a de facto standard has won a VCS battle, but not the war; there's no reason to be complacent.
It's fine to not care too much about VCS: just test the waters every now and again to make a quick cost/benefit assessment of the options; right now, that probably says "just use git". The majority of users should take this approach, and spend their time and effort on improving other things they care more about.
Yet it's also fine to still care about VCS, try to invent or improve things, add more tooling or integrations for whatever non-standard system, and promote those things in order to nudge those cost/benefit analyses a little. If something becomes compelling enough, a feedback loop could make it the new de facto standard.
Whilst I'm not particularly excited by Fossil, I am by other VCS ideas like the "patch theory" used by Darcs ( http://darcs.net ). A major problem with Darcs is poor time-complexity, but enough people cared about the idea to make Pijul ( https://pijul.org ) which doesn't have this problem.
Does that make Pijul better than git? No, not least because of the project's immaturity and lack of tooling, integration, etc. Yet it nudges the cost/benefit a little, which might encourage more of those who care about VCS (say, those writing integration plugins) to support it, which nudges the cost/benefit a little more, and so on :)