While I was away in Tokyo, NTTMCL switched from CVS to Subversion for their version control system. Perhaps it is just that I'm too accustomed to CVS's eccentricities, but so far I have to say the Subversion sucks. While I'm sitting here waiting for the checkout of one of our heavily-branched repositories to complete (45 minutes and counting!), I took the opportunity to read a little about how much more wonderful Subversion is than CVS.
So far, the best I've come up with is that Subversion is newer, therefore it is better. Yay. With subversion, I just get the delight of knowing I'm playing with a fresh(er) turd.
Sure, CVS sucks too. What bothers me about Subversion is that it sucks at least as much as CVS without giving anything in return. At least with CVS, I can tag a release or create a branch without having to make a whole other copy of the repository (on each developer's machine, no less!). At least with CVS, I can diff and merge files between branches or tags without developing a Repetitive Strain Injury. At least with CVS, the repo files are text so I can recover when it screws up. At least with CVS, I don't have to run a friggin' web server just to do revision control.
So, yeah, maybe I'm just an old fogey. Or maybe Subversion sucks so much, it actually makes me long for CVS. Wouldn't that be sad.