The issue isn't that designers are stupid, it's that, since they tend to have a better design sense (the good ones, at least!), they're generally less forgiving of ugly, needlessly hacked-together systems than people who spend most of their time immersed in them.
Designers are often helpful for a reality check. People should listen to them more!
(There is also nothing about DCVSs that necessitates a bad UI, of course.)
they're generally less forgiving of ugly, needlessly hacked-together systems...
Huh? Am I the only one who finds Subversion to be very confusing, at the conceptual level, compared to git? All that file-by-file history tracking, just waiting to trip you up when you try to move a file around? The fact that branching in SVN is hopelessly entangled with the concept of copying directories around in some remote repository? Here's the canonical example from the SVN book:
svn copy http://svn.example.com/repos/calc/trunk \
http://svn.example.com/repos/calc/branches/my-calc-branch \
-m "Creating a private branch of /calc/trunk."
I guess I must be the only one who prefers:
git clone git://github.com/mechfish/calc
cd calc
git branch my-calc-branch
git checkout my-calc-branch
# ... fiddle around, then when it's time to go back to master ...
git checkout master # note: no need to cd anywhere
I suppose that one downside of this is that all your coworkers don't get to automatically see the my-calc-branch on their centralized server. (How terrible it is that your every whim isn't being automatically published to the world!) Instead, when you want to push changes, you have to say something like this:
Whenever you want to push up the changes to my-calc-branch. This sort of incantation is not great, but that doesn't mean it can't or won't be improved, and it's not that big a price to pay.
The biggest problem with SVN is that getting started with it is so hard. As a git user, if I have a directory and I want it under version control, I do this:
Done. Put this in a droplet script and your great-grandpa could do it. (He'd have to read some blogs to figure out what to do next, but at least it's a start. And even if all he knew how to do was this:
cd my-directory
git commit -a -m "I committed today"
and he did it every now and then, that would be great! Like a tiny, hidden, aperiodic, directory-specific version of Apple's Time Machine. His industrious great-granddaughter could use these snapshots to clean up after his PHP experiments...)
As an SVN user, you need to find a hosted repository, get admin permission on it, set up the canonical directory structure -- being very careful to heed these words from the SVN book (you did read the SVN book, right?):
While Subversion's flexibility allows you to lay out your repository in any way that you choose, we recommend that you create a trunk directory to hold the “main line” of development, a branches directory to contain branch copies, and a tags directory to contain tag copies.
... and then import your project, being sure to get it imported into /trunk and not into /trunk's parent. Then you have to check it out -- being sure to check out /trunk, or at least to do all your work in /trunk, lest you screw yourself up or confuse yourself.
So I assume that by "ugly, needlessly hacked-together systems" you mean "systems that make you use the command line". The only reason Subversion seems at all simple to non-geeks (to the extent that it does, which isn't much of an extent) is that the authors of tools like TortoiseSVN and Versions have sweated bucketloads of blood to design beautiful interfaces which hide all this cruft from the end users. DVCS will get there. Give it time.
Calm down. :) I never said that subversion's interface is great(?!), I just said that designers often find some tools programmers use ridiculously ugly and unnecessarily complicated. I think they have a valid point, and when programmers write them off, they often lose valuable feedback. (If a relatively simple tool is as annoying to configure as procmail, for example, somebody screwed up badly. IMHO.)
I use Mercurial, but I don't have any grand illusions about its interface being ideal. It works well enough for me, though. (I don't like svn either; tracking changes on a file-by-file basis isn't usually the right abstraction for the way I work.) DCVSs are relatively new, as somebody else pointed out, and in time they will probably have better interfaces.
designers often find some tools programmers use ridiculously ugly and unnecessarily complicated
Yeah, that must be why so many of them use no version control at all...
I agree that the VCS to use is the one that your designer is willing to use. I just think that there's no reason why designers should necessarily want to use Subversion over a DVCS... except that, as a more mature tool, Subversion has a better selection of interface alternatives and a larger installed base.
Designers are often helpful for a reality check. People should listen to them more!
(There is also nothing about DCVSs that necessitates a bad UI, of course.)