I have to agree. I knew very little about versioning systems, other than that CVS is the "standard", while being simultaneously widely criticized for its failings. So I turned to this article - to O'Reilly - for pointers to alternatives.
What I found was profound equivocation. The message I got was, don't use CVS, and then, on the other hand, the alternatives aren't much better, if at all.
I felt there was really very little thought given to the content of the article beyond its structure, and the descriptions of the included systems left almost everything lacking.
As a result, I put the project on the backburner for a month.