I can imagine different systems just fine.

Hell - I used several before git (svn, sourcesafe, and something with an M at the start of the name that I think I've repressed so hard I can no longer recall).

My desire to continue using git has nothing to do with my inability to imagine a different system. It comes directly from having actually used those other systems.

I've done trunk development, I've dealt with file locks (and having to hunt down the fucking admin to unlock the file that one coworker locked before taking off on vacation).

I've seen the pain there. If anything, the vast majority of negative experiences with version control in my career came out of the first 5 years of it, before git took off everywhere. After that, the worst experiences are from the folks who absolutely refused to even try to learn git, and just bury their head in the sand of whatever tool they were using.

I don't really even like git, but unlike those other monstrosities... I can tolerate it. Is it "the best VCS"? Eh - probably not. It's fairly old, the concepts have trickled out to other systems, the cli tooling is obtuse, etc. But it's solid, widely used, and has none of the serious pain points those other tools caused.

The problem is that picking a VCS is rarely something you get to do.

There are specific version control systems that do some things better than git, but have huge downsides for other things.

If your company is focused on a specific thing (graphics or 3D modelling), there are options.

But usually "everyone" knows git well enough not to need hand-holding and that's what companies go with.

I don't see that in the comments. (and whould argue it's an orthogonal point anyways, many VCS, including git, can easily accommodate different development styles)

I can imagine SVN, but I cannot remember it. I erased the memories.