I think it's actually the opposite. Git's model is really really simple and pushes all the complexity onto the tooling and the user.

I dunno, git model always felt extremely intuitive to me... there are very few core concepts and ideas and all the complexity is layered on top of that and is easily decomposed. I feel like git concepts are very elegant while allowing a lot of complexity, like C/C++ pointers ;)

"Detached head" is Git's way of saying "I don't know how to find my children when you say something like 'git checkout abcd1234'". Fossil can do this, so you can point someone to a historical checkin and Fossil won't get lost should you later commit on top of it. Git's warning you that if you do that, you may end up with an orphaned commit.

Agreed on this one. It should instead let you handle this when you commit, make you reckon with what to call this new gitref. That is when I care about whether I'm connected to HEAD or not

Yeah, it would make you `git branch` to give it a name, or an override option to commit it without a name