I can do with only a single branch if necessary, but how the f*ck are you supposed to develop anything locally and roll back changes in subversion if you are never allowed to commit because it might break someone else's stuff?
I think there are other svn-alikes that might solve this problem (svk?), but with pure subversion it is the biggest roadblock for me (and I bet, a lot of other new coders).
In the old days, before git existed, we used to have a space in the repo for each developer. You could put whatever you wanted in there. So if you wanted to go off on a tangent you just copied the code via svn, switched to that copy, do your work, commit as you please. When you were happy you could cherrypick / merge into the main branches of the code.
Git makes this stuff easier, but it was all possible with svn. Hell, it was probably even possible with cvs if you jumped through the right hoops.
In terms of editing the history it's generally just considered something that you don't need to do.
My point was not so much that git isn't better. It was more that the desire for the new tech makes people forget what the old tech could do. It happened when svn took over from cvs. It'll happen when the next tech comes along to replace it. That's life.
As to the features mentioned in the article, I agree in principal, and someday I'll even learn git well enough to be feel like trying to use them isn't a huge, mental drain from the focus of my actual work :-)