"I think people need to worry less about their version control system and think more about writing useful code."

If you seriously think those are in opposition, you either need more experience with version control (preferably a modern one) or more experience with coding in a real environment with many people. Possibly both.

There really isn't any two ways about that. The only two ways you can think version control is worthless is if you've only used worthless version control (Hi, Visual Source Safe!) or you're caught on the wrong end of a Blub paradox.

I have a guy at work who thinks version control is beneath him, too. I say him and his twenty distinct-and-slightly-different versions of critical scripts that require huge maintenance (often incompletely done) for every trivial change are wrong, and I end up paying the price.

Sorry if that came across the wrong way. I intended to say that fanboyism over a version control system seems foolish. I've used a couple version control systems, although currently Plan 9 does all the version control I need with its archival fileserver (works for my kernel modifications).

I would never suggest undertaking a major coding project without some form of version control. However, it's a tool used to improve your work; going nuts over git (which seems to be the fashionable thing these days) is like an artist raving over how great his paintbrushes are and making special little boxes for them, or a carpenter who won't stop talking about his hammer when he's supposed to be roofing your house.

Fair enough. I (obviously) misinterpreted your post as being against version control itself. Fanboyism does suck.

However, DVCS systems are better than the previous state-of-the-art, by enough to be excited about. Not fanboyish about, but certainly excited about.