You are just repeating that it's fundamentally the user's fault because they "should not be doing that". A properly designed tool prevents incorrect usage. If a version of Java allows you to do something and that something proves to be very useful to GET THE JOB DONE, then I'm with Linus - the blame is not with the user.
For example, there was simply no alternative to using Unsafe in the past to get reasonable Java performance for certain task. The fact that it was there allowed me to resist the pressure to move a significant part of our codebase to C++. Of course we "should not be doing that" (using Unsafe) but the alternative was abandoning a large existing code base and hiring a bunch of C++ experts or retraining our existing developers or spending 10 times as much on our server capacity. Using Unsafe was a simple pragmatic decision. You cannot say it was "wrong" without knowing all the factors that went into the decision.
This is why I like Linus' stance in this case.
This is the first time that has happened to me in nearly 20 years of using java.
Almost nothing is broken in Java. Jigsaw modified who to use reflection to access data in an insecure manner. You should not be doing that in the first place for obvious reasons. But the code that was using reflection still works, you just get a warning when starting an application. That's all.
>No "user" is interested in comparing theoretical specs with the behaviour of the reference implementation
So you're probably not going to write any code in any strong-typed programming language, all of them have some kind of contracts you should/have to follow.
Do you know that Oak source code (what Java was called before) still compiles and runs in Java10?