"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?
This didn't quite make sense to me. PHB says they can only fix the critical bugs, which may actually be the logical solution, but Dilbert says they have to fix absolutely every bug for the software to be useful. That's rarely the case.
But I suppose it is possible in aviation or military systems, as HanDy_man pointed out. Still, I never imagined Dilbert's company to be working on those kinds of critical projects.