If SVN is a terrible application with no merits to large developers like MS, why did it exist in the first place?
If the features SVN brings over git are not considered detrimental by Torvalds, why did he create his own VCS with them removed, and why hasn't he added them back in?
Where's the contradiction? All kids of terrible apps exist. Terribleness and existence are not mutually exclusive qualities.
(Assuming SVN is terrible, of course, which I didn't say. I'd say SVN was a attempt to go beyond CVS with some shortcomings that don't make it the best available option today).
>If the features SVN brings over git are not considered detrimental by Torvalds, why did he create his own VCS with them removed, and why hasn't he added them back in?
Lots of possible answers (given the assumption in your "if"):
E.g. he might not consider them detrimental for other people and use cases, but he doesn't need them for his use case (Linux kernel development) either.
Or he thinks that while they might be good, they complicate things too much, and he prefers a more minimum feature set.
(a) the result of the work of a major Git player like GitHub, and a major software company like Microsoft, with tens of excellent engineers devoted on it, and that solves a real pain point they have, is a centralized abomination that merely replicates a feature SVN already had
(b) your description is a crude knee jerk reaction
?