Re: Proves Git is unsuitable for commercial dev work
re the title: no it doesn't
I clone various Linux kernel trees quite regularly. It can be a bit of a pain over slow links, but once I have the clone, I can pull updates with minimal hassle.
MS isn't "bastardising" git, either. Neither is it forcing a centralised model on developers. It's using lazy fetches to minimise the amount of downloads that individual devs need to make before they can start bashing on the code. Granted, if they want to actually *compile*, they'll need to do more fetches, but not, one would assume, the full repo + history. Anyway, a few things:
* The basic copy-on-write semantics are still there (developer's local edits are still local until pushed back and they still have to be merged back in in exactly the same way as before)
* Nobody is forcing anyone to use this file system, since they can still use regular clone to a local, non-virtual disk
* This is probably aimed at intranet deployment, where it should definitely help reduce unnecessary traffic (though I guess if it's well-designed, with well-thought out security, you could also use it on the wider net)
It's a file system, not a fundamental change to git itself, hence it's not enforcing a centralised development model, nor proving that git is fundamentally flawed.