The thing is for me, I have enough "skills" with the command-line that I find that many tasks are accomplished faster that way. Often, I find that between clicking on some buttons and going through some configuration GUI-panels or wizards, and doing the equivalent task on the command-line or in a config file (CMakeLists.txt, or a bash script), I find that the latter is quicker. I think that the effectiveness of working in the command-line / terminal is underappreciated.

I agree with this Mike, command line is so much faster. While programming I do almost everything in the command line (Makefiles for compiling, testing etc..) with the exception of text editing, I use Sublime Text 3 (unregistered, heh..) mainly because it's beauty, otherwise I would be just fine using vim or the like. I absolutely refuse to use IDE's for development because of the productivity decrease, claustrophobia, annoyance, and guilt. This is why I think things like C# and Java are evil, they're setup in such a way it's almost necessary to use an IDE (especially C#) which I think completely ruins knowlege of new programmers. </rant>

Git stores your data off site from you, in what's these days called "the cloud".

No it doesn't. Git stores data on your system with your source code. YOU have the option to push it to a server such as, Github, or Bitbucket. Also as mentioned previously, the cloud is just a fancy name for a bunch of loud, dusty servers somewhere that you have the OPTION to push data to.

Yes, you can buy a license to host your own repository...

Woah! Since when and for what do you need to BUY a license to host a repository?!?!?!

but there's plenty of other options out there that are just as good (like SVN) where there's no such cost involved.

Sorry, it's not 2002 anymore, (of course this is just opinion, a majority opinion though) but SVN is just gawd awful compared to the more recent solutions (like Git, (Is mercurial any good?)).

Woah! Since when and for what do you need to BUY a license to host a repository?!?!?!

There are some proprietary version control system for which you need to pay a license fee to use. As far as I am aware, none of them are really good enough compared to the open-source / free options out there, such as Git, SVN, CVS, Mercurial, Bazaar, etc.. I think that at this point, most proprietary version control system have more or less given up on trying to compete, except maybe BitKeeper. I know that the Microsoft version control (Team Foundation Version Control) has even abdicated in favor of Git, and the version before that (Vault) is also dead.

Long story short, these days, you would have to be pretty stupid to actually pay money for licensing a version control software or repository, because the open-source (especially Git) are clearly superior products.

SVN is just gawd awful compared to the more recent solutions (like Git)

Yeah. SVN was OK, but a bit annoying. And clearly, it is being phased out in favor of Git everywhere. I constantly see older open-source project and libraries that are now using Git, where they used to use SVN. It's gonna disappear slowly... I think that people share jwenting's concerns about where their data is and that's why they like Git so much, for the flexibility, decentralization, and the full backups it produces everywhere, and also the general security and control over any server that you might want to use. Git is just an all-around better solution.

+1 for sublime text 3

The thing is for me, I have enough "skills" with the command-line that I find that many tasks are accomplished faster that way.

I agree with you there. My former boss actually requested that I not use the command line because he and my co-worker were not comfortable with it. Too freaking bad. I would rather do

net use m: \\dover\rep\install /persistent:no

then have to navigate through window after window and select multiple items from a menu. His lack of skills should not translate into more inconvenience for me. If the command line works for you then great. I was speaking only for how I relate to a command line interface in this instance. I did a lot of my housekeeping from the command line. In fact, there were some things that could be done only from the command line. At least in Windows (oddly enough).

the cloud is just a fancy name for a bunch of loud, dusty servers somewhere

As far as I know, referring to the internet as "the cloud" comes from early dataflow diagrams where local stuff was drawn as actual computers. When data was pushed out to machines on the internet, that destination was often drawn as a cloud. At least, that's how it was on all of our drawings. The actual cloud was drawn in detail on other drawings.

I personally think of the "cloud" to mean geo-redundant storage and distribution, much in the way content delivery networks work.

i.e. I upload a picture of my cat to "the Cloud".
Jim, from the US, downloads the image of my cat from a server in the US. My boss, on the other hand, would download the same image from a server in the UK.

To me, or the user storing information, everything is handled and managed from a central point. I "can't see" the 25 worldwide servers my information is subsequently distributed from.
This is what I would consider correct usage of "the Cloud" as terminology. Although I admit that it's pretty much a buzzword and marketting tool.

As far as source control is concerned, if I recall they are sectioned into three generations.

1st Generation - ie. SourceSafe
2nd Generation - TFS
3rd Generation - Git/Mercurial

In a large organisation TFS still offers benefits over Git/Mercurial simply because of the Enterprise level support from Microsoft, however, Git is a "superior" system in terms of features. Distributed source control is some kind of witch-craft, but I think it's hard to go back to TFS after getting used to Git.

Git you have to pay to be allowed to host your own server. It's right there on their website...

Not sure what website you were looking at but I haven't been able to find that. Git is available as OpenSource from their website. Install and configure a repository, there are a few guides out there that show you how.

GitHub may charge to create a private repository, but this is a different service to one that you'd set up yourself. They're essentially hosting and managing it for you and you don't have to make your source code open source.

@jwenting... being a veteran member I had to double check as normally you are right. However,I too can't understand the link between 'git' and the cloud you refer to..

Github- yes... you need the cloud but using git... from all the sources I've looked at is free, and free to use on servers. Can you link to the source which says otherwise?

There are sites that will charge a fee for hosting a git repository just the same as there are sites that will charge a fee for hosting an SVN server, or any other version control server / repository for that matter. However, you can use git for free on your own infrastructure, whether it be on your local hard-drive only or using your own server (local, from your organization, or a VPS). There is absolutely no requirement to tie yourself to a paid "cloud" service or hosting site. jwenting is clearly misinformed about this.

@jwenting - Some software is free for personal use but $$$ for commercial use. And I believe the distinction between git and github has already been pointed out.

@Reverend Jim, yes it has and he still doesn't seem to get it.
Git and Github are not synonomous. Git is the version control system, it's installed on your computer (or server), and is used to manipulate repositories locally. Github is a service that hosts Git repositories for you, for free if open source, with a fee for a private repository.

So you could host your own server for absolutely no fee.