The author sets up a false dichotomy: Subersion or git. But those are two different models of source control: centralized and distributed. If you want to use centralized source control, the choice is more likely to be cvs or Subversion.
The popular notion isn't that Subversion sucks, but that it's pointless. The claim I hear is that it's a reinvention of cvs, but it doesn't actually improve much. Personally, I had to learn cvs, it's simple enough for my needs, and I see no reason to switch to something that's fundamentally the same thing.
I think most cvs users are in a similar situation as me. We know Subversion is better, but those benefits seem marginal and not worth the effort to switch.
I have a lot to say about version control, but I won't get into the details here.
However, on the 'switch from CVS to SVN', I'll comment and say that SVN is far superior to CVS.
The whole 'changes committed to the repo up the entire repo version' alone make this worthwhile.
SVN is also less arcane in its usage.
SVN has better tools for, well, everything.
SVN integrates well with all major IDEs (mine being VIM, but also Monodevelop and Eclipse).
The switch from CVS to SVN also made our releases much easier to manage (merging branches is fairly trivial and tagging is a no-brainer).
If you're using CVS in a company, do yourself a favour and switch to SVN. The basic concepts are the same, so re-educating developers takes all of 5 minutes.
The popular notion isn't that Subversion sucks, but that it's pointless. The claim I hear is that it's a reinvention of cvs, but it doesn't actually improve much. Personally, I had to learn cvs, it's simple enough for my needs, and I see no reason to switch to something that's fundamentally the same thing.
I think most cvs users are in a similar situation as me. We know Subversion is better, but those benefits seem marginal and not worth the effort to switch.