Share this page with other Digg Readers or tell others you "Dugg" it.
Share on Reddit
Share this page with other Reddit Readers or delegate points for this page.
Woh! What is this thing?!
This is a social bar from the Dilbert team and our friends at Meebo. It is a cool little feature we've added to Dilbert to make sharing comic strips, Mashups and other content, a simple click of the mouse from any page.
Try it out – use the buttons to instantly send the next funny comic you read to your Facebook status or your Twitter feed. We’re adding even more ways to share soon, so check this space often!
@KevinKunreuther - I don't think you have an entirely realistic view of open source software.. if what you're saying is true, virtually all open source software out there would be bug free. And it is most certainly not.
The truth is that for any software project of significant size, it is not possible to ensure it is 100% bug free. For more critical (parts of) software, you can test more and reduce the number of bugs more than you would for less critical software, but you won't achieve zero bugs. Even zero *known* bugs is not likely.
Regardless of the unrealism (which I think is quite excusable in a cartoon) of panel 2, the last panel is funny all by itself.
It's almost as if the talk balloons are reversed; to me it makes more sense if Dilbert speaks in frame 1 and PHB in frame 2. That would be totally in character for both (well more in character).
KevinKunreuther Said
"1.)Too many nerd/geeks taking100% funny out of today's comic"
Normally, Id agree 100%. However, I might comment that what makes Dilbert so funny is that it mocks real life absurd situations. In this case, it is not funny, because I think most programmers will agree that the PHB is not absurd at all. In real life, you often have to ship with "known issues". So this comic will just not resonate with us.
I like to agree with Adam Carolla that is somthing is funny *is* objective - not subjective. And this is not funny.
HanDy:man gives examples of bug-free software and includes shuttles. I attended a lecture by a NASA expert who said that, for large systems, it is impossible to get bug-free software. Their studies showed that, however much effort is thrown at reducing bugs, 7 errors per 1000 lines of code is about the best that can be attained.
Airplane software is bug-free? Then why do they have three different programs running and check that all three give the same answer? How was it that the display in an aircraft on approach to London Heathrow suddenly went blank and displayed the comforting message for the crew, "Please wait . . ."? Or, in another aircraft, why did the pilot have to land by raising the nose when he wanted it to lower and turn to the right when he wanted to turn to the left?
