I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Mono-repo is entirely a different concept then centralized (eg: SVN) vs distributed (eg: git).

I'd also seriously question an org not using git, specifically, despite claiming "cargo cult". Literally every developer knows it, it's got a huge choice of tooling, and every service/tool (CI/CD, issue tracker, etc) has an integration. IMHO, you better have a damn good reason to be on something else to justify the headaches involved of being not git.

> I'd also seriously question an org not using git

That's a very damning statement. Many places use perforce, for example.

Git doesn't handle binaries and frankly git struggles to scale. Try checking out a _large_ git repo and running some common operations on it.

Even Microsoft manages Windows using Git today

> Microsoft developed the Git Virtual File System to be able to get the benefits of using Git without having to wait hours for even the simplest of Git commands to run.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/05/24/microsoft-now-uses-git-and...

Sounds like it's git but begrudgingly.

Just because it's a monorepo it doesn't mean it's centralized?

Yes. It’s the accompanying suggestion of using github or gitlab that means it’s centralised.

Read this as “Do you use git?” This is opposed to svn, cvs, something home-grown, or passing thumb drives back and forth among developers.

Hg, svn, perforce, plastic are all feasible alternatives to git.