Git is certainly by far the de facto standard VCS. But I don't think lolinder's reasoning for why that is so has strong support, as it doesn't explain why other areas haven't already achieved the same standardization.

lolinder wrote "At some point every industry grows up and standardizes on something, anything, because any standard is better than no standard."

Either there was a standard editor before VSCode or there was not.

If there was a standard editor before VSCode, then it's clear that standards can change, which challenges lolinder's proposal that "launching a competing standard at this point isn't going to make things better". The VSCode developers likely thought it would make things better.

If it was no standard editor, then it took about 50 years for the industry to decide on one (dating from the late 1960s to 2016, when VSCode was definitely not the standard).

Leading to my observation that the "at some point" can take decades, and implies the urge to have a standard is not all that strong.

My memories of the 1990s was the CVS was the de facto standard, like how VSCode is now for text editors. Yet people fragmented the industry with SVN, BZR, Git, BitKeeper, Git, and more - because because they thought they could make things better. And at least one of them was right.

I'm therefore not so confident about rejecting launching an alternative to git. My limited understanding of Fossil, for example, tells me there are better approaches than git. (Then again, I'm a Mercurial user, so I already have my own preferences. ;)