The differences between source control paradigms come down to a few things: what is the resolution of versioning (project/subproject/file); how are checkpoint labels created/tracked; how many levels of sub-project are supported; what tools are available to resolve collisions/migrate change sets. There's more but that's a start.

Its not really "source control" until you can have multiple team members making changes to entire source sets independently and then reconcile them in a controlled manner. Missing that, you have a "version control" system - little more useful than zipping up your source periodically and saving it in a folder.

I'm not sure the article explains enough to put git into perspective - its mostly a "what is version control" parable?