Usually when giving out criticism it is wise to be specific.
In this case, git can be awkward to use, but the underlying architecture is sound and it's a welcome change to centralised version control systems (CVS/SVN/Perforce).
Not saying you're wrong of course, but as far as I currently understand it's objectively better on all fronts except UX for DVCS. Perforce is undoubtedly better but it relies on a constant connection to a server.
In this case, git can be awkward to use, but the underlying architecture is sound and it's a welcome change to centralised version control systems (CVS/SVN/Perforce).
Not saying you're wrong of course, but as far as I currently understand it's objectively better on all fronts except UX for DVCS. Perforce is undoubtedly better but it relies on a constant connection to a server.