Link Details

Useless rant. I mean, it's worth knowing that SVN has some major setbacks, but I think the reason it exists (and is so popular) is that it's that much better than CVS in important ways (specifically, speed and the handling of directories). Now, I would love to see a SVN 2.0 that did things like tagging and branching in a sane way (eliminating the need for the trunk/ branches/ tags/ convention). However, in the meantime I will use the best version control system of the two which are ubiquitously available (and let me give you a hint, it's not CVS).

I gave +1, but half of the reasons fit under "SVN WAS NEVER INTENDED TO BE A DISTRIBUTED VERSION CONTROL SYSTEM".

Better title would be "Consider a Distributed version control system instead of SVN".

Quite valid I'd say.
Open source is typically distributed, so it seems idiotic and naive to design a open source repository which is not a distributed version control system.