But a unintuitive command-line interface and footguns don't seem like big enough issues to actually lead to Git being "overthrown" in a similar way how non-distributed VCS's reliance on a central server that you're always connected to was. I mean, people work their way through the confusing CLI until it's no longer a major blocker because it's so dominant, and you can usually recover from shooting yourself in the foot without data loss - making either point an annoyance, but not to the point of actively looking for and learning an alternative.
But a unintuitive command-line interface and footguns don't seem like big enough issues to actually lead to Git being "overthrown" in a similar way how non-distributed VCS's reliance on a central server that you're always connected to was
I would argue that GitHub was the killer app for Git: it was so compelling that people were willing to put up with Git’s issues so they could use it.
People forget that Mercurial had the early lead in terms of mindshare; many companies adopted it because it was easier for their developers to learn and its syntax was familiar to anyone who used CVS or Subversion. (Linus’ disdain for Subversion is no secret; perhaps that was part of the reason he was okay with Git's syntax being somewhat backwards compatible).
Here's the first advantage of Mercurial cited by Google:
Learning Curve. Git has a steeper learning curve than Mercurial due to a number of factors. Git has more commands and options, the volume of which can be intimidating to new users. Mercurial's documentation tends to be more complete and easier for novices to read. Mercurial's terminology and commands are also a closer to Subversion and CVS, making it familiar to people migrating from those systems.
