Today I learned that some people consider unexpected data loss a feature, and that removing such a "feature" is in fact the same as adding a new feature.
It's newspeak all in the software world. A first for everything I suppose.
> Today I learned that some people consider unexpected data loss a feature
I did not say that, and I am not sure if you genuinely do not understand or if you do it on purpose. Let me try one last time with simple constructs:
The lack of backup is not a feature. The lack of backup is a missing feature. The lack of backup is not a bug.
> and that removing such a "feature" is in fact the same as adding a new feature.
I have no clue what you are trying to say here, it's just gibberish.
> As an example, a piece of code sending authentication credentials in plain text across the internet might in isolation be considered free of bugs.
This is not a good example. It's almost certainly a security issue. Unless you have a threat model where you absolutely don't give a shit about it, but we're not in 2010 anymore. Let me try to make another one:
As an example, a messenging app sending encrypted but not end-to-end encrypted messages over a server may be considered free of bugs. Adding end-to-end encryption to it would be a new feature, and it may well be out of scope for that particular app (ever heard of Telegram?).
Because you really want it doesn't make it a bug.