Well just to present the other side, I don't really understand the prevalence of the "there's no one answer that fits for everybody" comment trope. You see a couple of comments like yours in every discussion like this. So no offense, but I'm going to rant about it for a few paragraphs.
If the "no one-size-fits-all" claim happens to be genuinely and axiomatically true for a particular engineering trade-off, then fine. There's no one correct displacement of an internal combustion engine. There's no one correct resolution of an LCD screen. Fine. It's demonstrably true that a trade space exists.
But a lot of times people seem to just throw up their hands and call it a trade space when really they just haven't reached a conclusion yet. "There's nothing inherently better or worse between Ubuntu and Windows, they're basically just ice cream flavors!" No! Maybe we haven't fully realized a more perfect operating system yet to settle the debate, but that doesn't just make it a meaningless question. It's perfectly possible for a system to be architected poorly given both the real world it has to interact in and the future world it makes possible. To say that this question is an unanswerable matter of taste is to be completely unimaginative about how good an operating system _COULD_ be. (See the death of operating system research and all that).
CVS is _worse_ than git. It just is. I don't want to hear this "well maybe if it fits your use case" mumbo jumbo. If you think that you have a unique snowflake reason that CVS is more appropriate than git, than you are almost certainly lying to yourself or misinformed.
And it's strict hierarchies like that that inspire these articles. There are a lot of technologies out there, and lot of ideas, and most people don't know most of the things you need to know to come up with a good answer to what suits "their specific situation". So people like myself are looking for lessons learned and certain invariants that help them narrow the solution space. I have no idea whether a monorepo would work well for my organization, and if the only thing that your article has to contribute is "monorepos sometimes work for some people, but YMMV! Good luck!" then I have learned nothing. But if somebody thinks that they've learned a fundamental truth about the universe, that that could be useful to me. Whats more, most people like me have a situation that _isn't_ that specific. We have to write some code, there's some ML shit in there, and some real-time critical stuff in there. Nothing mindblowing. _Most_ software shops shouldn't need something that is particularly bespoke. So coming in with the prior that everybody will have to do something unique to their organization is bizarre. There is so much commonality between what each software company does, in fact, that if a commonly used technology can be used by shop A but legitimately can't be used by shop B, there's a decent chance that this is a problem or limitation with the tech.
So who knows, maybe saying monorepos are _always_ better or _always_ worse really is too ambitious. But I don't think the concept that they _could_ be is a priori ridiculous. End this software relativism! Things can be made better! Yes, strictly better!
