You sound like a Software Engineer.
A Project Manager is more focused on the status of the overall project and allocating resources in an effective way to ensure that milestones are being met and in proper time. They also remove roadblocks and help the project resources focus on their specific job functions.
Writing and maintaining design and technical documentation is an important part of being a software engineer and is appropriate for your role. Too much of a good thing can be bad though (See Analysis Paraylsis ).
He considers the design to be paramount, coding is "just writing the design down"
If the project manager considers the design documents to be paramount then he expects the documents as a deliverable in the process. It is not a wasted time on your part if he feels they are important enough to allocate 80% of your time to it.
it shouldn't take too long, and "all the code should be written before the hardware is ready".
This is wishful thinking and quite an antiquated Waterfall style view of how software development works. It invariably is never that clean no matter how much design and preparation that you devote. On that note however, you should have clear hardware specs and proper test environments and mock hardware simulations for your code to interact with but again, the real world is messy.
Project management is incredibly easy in a perfect world. The world is not perfect however no matter how much you wish it to be so making real project management incredibly difficult. This is why they are paid the big bucks.
(2) Doesn't understand the difference between a Central & Distributed Version control.
Why should he care? How does it affect the milestones? It doesn't.
3) Doesn't understand code, and wants to understand every bug and its proposed solution
His goal is for working software and yours should be too. He does not need to understand the code but he does need to understand the issues that are preventing working software. Once the two of you see eye to eye on this basic level then your mutual goal will help you work together more effectively.
(4) Believes verification should be done by developer, and validation by the Tester.
What is wrong with this sentiment? Testers in the quality assurance role should be concerned with validating features and requirements. Developers should make every effort to verify and test their work before it goes to testing.
I don't really like creating documents, I want to solve problems and write code.
If you would rather be a simple programmer then perhaps you should talk to your boss about this and see if there is a better role for you on the project. Somebody needs to write and maintain the technical documentation, so perhaps one of the other developers can help you with some of these tasks so you aren't spending 80% of your time writing documentation.
In my experience, creating design documents only helps to an extent, its never the solution to better or faster code.
This is mostly true... but only if all ten developers are spending 80% of their time writing technical documentation that nobody will ever read. This is an enormous management anti-pattern that I have lived in before. If you find that you are doing most of the documentation for the team then it hardly seems fair that you are denied the right to perform more coding work.
The fact of the matter is that the best technical documentation is the code itself.
I feel the boss doesn't really care about making better products, but only about being a good manager in the eyes of the management
I feel that he does care because the product is his ward and if projects and features are not completed and clients aren't happy then upper management will not care for him very much. The problem is that your perspective on the necessary quality improvements don't match with his, and upper management, and the clients perception of what they feel is important.
Try to understand what is truly important for the product, because while you can increase the efficiency of a process 3 fold, if you spend an entire week doing this then it is at the cost of another important feature that the client is demanding.
We all want to look good to the eyes of our superior. There is nothing wrong with that, it is human nature to be self serving. This is a fact of life.
Best Answer
It appears to be a twist on "A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush" - meaning you should hold on what you have rather than risk losing it for something more. That sentiment can make sense in software engineering, but I don't see how the modification makes sense when you try to parse it as a derivation:
The original meaning clearly makes no sense. You can twist it in plenty of ways:
But I see no reason to prefer any of these meanings, and without context or attribution I can only insert my own values.
Most matches are on sites relating to "computing humor", along other quotes such as "The definition of an upgrade: Taking old bugs out and putting new bugs in". Given that, plus the open-ended meaning, I think it is simply a funny substitution, and that we shouldn't try to read into it more than that.