> [..] way too big to test every possible code path
He disregards tests. Most are futile. Maybe automated testing could make some sense (fuzzing, quickcheck, etc), but still, most are stupidly weak and offer no guarantee whatsoever (even quantitatively).
> I'd rather have an OS with a few bugs than no OS at all.
He specifically argues for error instead of bug so that we can't say it's "almost correct" but only that it is "wrong". "a few bugs" is just "wrong".
Yes, but if there is a known defect in your software, do you release or not?
To me, there is a difference between knowingly releasing faulty software or only after release discovering faults in the software. Unless there is no reasonable quality check in the software development and release procedures, because then you are not doing much better than knowingly releasing faulty software.
The original point was that bug is euphemism for error. In 99.99% of cases, errors are not caused by insects.
Dijsktra basically wanted to take step back on that treadmill and use proper word.