I get it that you believe that there are legitimate business reasons for releasing software with known bugs.  I'm sorry, but I'm afraid I can't agree with the arguments made to support this logic.

However, assuming I'm mistaken about the business logic ... what about the ethics of such an approach?  

Even though the dba/development community is conditioned to expect bugs in early releases of software products they purchase...does that really release MS and Oracle from responsibility from delivering a finished (bug-free) product when collecting our money?  Isn't there a significant cost to our employers or customers when such bugs exist (consider how much time is spent researching the causes and applying any fixes or workarounds)?

What about the general public or even a purchaser of a high-end business application who hasn't been conditioned as we have?  Would management put the "cat2/cat1 error handling policy" in the product brochure or in the purchase agreement?  Probably not.  But would you argue that it's also "understood" by these buyers that the product will be "incomplete" when version 1.0 is delivered?  If so, I'm not sure sure.  I've been around a little, and that hasn't been my experience at all.  My experience is that such buyers plan and expect that the product will be entirely consistent with oral and written representations made when selling the product (which is likely to exclude any mention of known bugs in the product).

Depending on statements made in the sales process, buggy software could even be illegal.  Most states have "Fair Business Practice" laws that say it's against the law for businesses to make false representations to generate a sale.  I'v read about software companies that have been sued and lost under such laws when, in essence, the delivered application was "buggy".

By the way...enjoying (or enjoyed) the discussion, and I apologize for any potentially abrasive sounding comments -