git is not a new idea, various features of git existed in various SCMs for decades. The distributed aspect existed in Bitkeeper too, for example.

But it took a big brain with a systemic view of the problem and solutions space to bring them all together - in a lighting fast implementation to boot.

▲

toyg 5 hours ago | parent [-]

I don't think technical features were the key to git's success. What really made the difference was:

1. it was free;

2. it was sponsored by the most fashionable project of the time (Linux);

3. it did not require a server;

4. because it was FOSS, people could extend it without asking anyone's permission; and...

5. ...once GitHub appeared, simplifying the PR process, the network effect did its thing.

Git was hard to use and to understand. It did not win on technical features alone, as you said there were plenty of alternatives. It won because of community and network effects.

	▲	skydhash 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> Git was hard to use and to understand So is ffmpeg and ImageMagick. Or Blender. Or Freecad. There are domains that do require some learning and training to properly use the available tool.