A Brief Response from the Referenced Author
First, let me say I’m pleased to see Helix covered by The Register, as it provides an opportunity to clear up some misconceptions about the product. In this brief response, I’d like to call out some factual inaccuracies and explain how the main objection is no longer valid.
Regarding factual inaccuracies, Helix is neither strictly centralized nor proprietary. It offers the most advanced DVCS capabilities available, including features Git and other systems don’t (and may never) have. Pieces of Helix are already open source, and I expect more will be over time.
Further, Helix integrates with a large number of the best-of-breed tools across the ALM chain, offers multiple APIs to craft your own, and performs at scale like no other system. Helix supports tens of thousands of users, hundreds of millions of daily transactions, billions of files, and can manage petabytes of storage. I’ve neither seen nor even heard of projects using Git operate at that kind of scale, because it simply doesn’t perform. This is why our customers daily continue to choose Helix over Git.
But as to main thrust of the article, it is fair to say that Helix did not have a good GitHub-style workflow two years ago. But that’s precisely why Perforce has subsequently released GitSwarm, a tool that offers exactly the kind of workflow touted in the article. As such, the article's main criticism is no longer valid.
Finally, Perforce is under new management and takes Git very seriously. In fact, we’re reworking all our Git tooling while continuing to push the boundaries of DVCS science. Stay tuned for more exciting stuff. I’ll later publish a longer response on the Perforce blog on this article for those who want more details.