As a technical person, I care about technical merit, not whether or not something is a cash cow for the manufacturer. I use Windows at work, and I watch it waste hours of my own time and my coworkers time. Just yesterday, my friend had some random problem with his roaming profile -- it started taking 25 minutes to log off. We tried various things that the support folks recommended -- the result was a wasted day (costing our employer hundreds of dollars in lost time), and the problem still persists. Maybe reformatting his machine and removing and re-adding the account in AD would fix the problem. The fact is, nobody really knows. Nobody knows why this is happening, and nobody knows how it can be fixed. That's what you pay hundreds of dollars for -- software that is so unmaintainable that even Microsoft can't fix it. At least with Linux, you can read the source code and figure out how to fix something. (I can't think of any problem with Linux that can't be fixed, given time. But there are a lot of Windows problems that can never be fixed.)
Back on to the topic of version control, Subversion has a major flaw -- its common operations throw away your data. It deletes your fucking work! That's exactly what a version control system should never do.
Git may have overly-sugary frontends that require a lot of manpage perusal, but one thing it doesn't do is lose your work. (Even "git reset --hard" is relatively safe; just "git checkout HEAD@{0} and it's reversed!)
I don't get how Subversion is simpler, either. Common operations:
To create a repository with Subversion, you have to find some central place to store it, setup permissions, add users, and finally you can import your files. With git it's just "git init; git add .; git commit -m 'initial import'". You can deal with replication later -- right now you can just work.
To checkout a branch with Subversion "svn switch <some long http URL that has to be exactly right or it fails>". With git, "git checkout <branchname>". To merge a branch, "git merge <branch>". To push your changes to the server, "git push". To pull changes from the server without losing data in your working copy, "git pull --rebase". (That operation is not possible with Subversion, "svn update" brings your working copy into an inconsistent state that can't be reverted -- it creates a local branch, but without any tools to manage it.)
Anyway, Subversion is not good. Git is comparatively not that bad.
From a software engineering perspective, svn is probably better. But it's a well-engineered bad design. Git is a poorly-engineered good design. Good designs always beat good implementations. (Darcs is a great example of this -- great code quality, bad model. Still better than Subversion on both counts, though, of course.)