I don't understand why he mentioned this. I understand software bloat to describe the situation that arises when unnecessary features added to a program incre

I don't understand why he mentioned this. I understand software bloat to describe the situation that arises when unnecessary features added to a program increases it's size and/or decreases performance, without providing significant user benefits. In the article, Linus says "Acceptable and avoidable are two different things. It's unacceptable but it's also probably unavoidable." If it's unavoidable, then the features that were added aren't really bloat, because it implies that these features are necessary, and that they provide significant benefits. Necessary additions that provide significant benefits could be anything from security features to IO. IMO, Linus should either state what he thinks should be removed from the kernel, or he shouldn't even bother mentioning it at all. If on the other hand he's lamenting the fact that there's a cost associated with adding features (necessary or unnecessary), well then I think most people understand that you can't have your cake and eat it, so even from that perspective his point seems redundant.