I use git, so I'll explain a few things I like about it.
1. I can commit things locally before committing them to the main repository. This allows me to commit something in a manner that separates it from all future changes, but test it for a few more days in future development before I actually push it to the main repository.
2. I can correct past commits. This means I don't have to clutter up the history with "fix typo"; I can just amend the previous commit. Obviously this isn't useful for stuff far back, but if I commit something and 2 minutes later someone points out a typo, I can fix it. A messy history makes development and bugfinding harder; git helps avoid it.
3. Git diff is formatted a bit more nicely than svn diff, IMO.
I hate to point out the painfully obvious, but the discussion in this article isn't about why one should use a DVCS, but about the respective pros and cons of Git and Mercurial.
Your comment is a little like saying "man, a visual text editor sure beats using ex on a teletype!" in the middle of a vi/emacs war.
1. I can commit things locally before committing them to the main repository. This allows me to commit something in a manner that separates it from all future changes, but test it for a few more days in future development before I actually push it to the main repository.
2. I can correct past commits. This means I don't have to clutter up the history with "fix typo"; I can just amend the previous commit. Obviously this isn't useful for stuff far back, but if I commit something and 2 minutes later someone points out a typo, I can fix it. A messy history makes development and bugfinding harder; git helps avoid it.
3. Git diff is formatted a bit more nicely than svn diff, IMO.