Thanks to the HN search function I found my comment from the first time this page was linked over 4 years ago:<p>At least the site's anonymous author cherrypicks some biased but reasonably true statements to make instead of spreading opinions and misinformation. I'd still like to see entries for some elephants in the room like "Subversion is far slower than Git in important operations", "Common failure types corrupt Subversion working copies" and "Locked files interfere with team workflow".<p>Rereading the same page now I get a much worse impression of bad faith rather than mere bias. But who would make such an effort for a technical issue like Subversion vs. Git, rather than for a definite commercial or political interest? Could it be a case of unusually delusional opinions?