[zimbabwe]

No. He's using it for the applications written by developers who are fine with their code not being free because they're given incredible access to millions of people or because they have some of the best developer tools there are. The people coding for the iPhone aren't forced to code for a closed system. They choose to code for it, because they love the operating system; the people who buy their applications love the operating system; everybody wins.

I understand you like free software. You've spent two years reminding people here about how much you love free software; loving free software is awesome and it promotes a lot of good feelings in the programming world. But you have this tendency to jump into arguments and start parading your views no matter how logical the other side seems. I mean, we know the App Store is fucked up, and we complain about it, and we know that to you, the iPhone's being closed is a complete no-no. But you refuse to even admit that the other side has a logical point. This is something like the fifth time this week where you disagree with somebody not by refuting their points, but by implying that the person you're arguing with hasn't got a clue what they're talking about.

Having a contrary viewpoint is awesome. Disagreeing with other people's philosophies is awesome. Getting into protruded debate is awesome. But your occasional tactic of debating with somebody by ignoring everything they're saying and assuming they're ignoramuses is pointless and irritating. Stop.

[jrockway]

See, this is all irrelevant. The initial condition that I stated in my first post was, that if you don't want Apple's conditions, don't get an iPhone. Someone took that to mean, "if you are happy with Apple's constraints, then don't buy an iPhone". I did not say that.

I think you'll agree that if you wake up in the morning and say to yourself, "I think I want to write Free software for a mobile telephone", your next statement will not be, "and now I'm going to go buy an iPhone." Right?

Your occasional tactic of debating with somebody by ignoring everything they're saying and assuming they're ignoramuses is pointless and irritating. Stop.

[zimbabwe]

You said:

But it's sad that people will buy hardware that conspires against them to make their life difficult.

ubernostrum said:

I can't honestly say that my iPhone has made my life difficult.

You said:

You aren't trying to write free software for it.

So you ignored his point, namely that the iPhone's software hasn't at all conspired against him, and went on nonetheless, with a little hint of snark. I hate snark even when it's justified, though you very often post snark in places where snark is useful and accurate. Every time you get into one of these arguments, however, it's a nuisance. You had a valid starting point re: Jailbreaking, but when ubernostrum gave a valid response, you snarked for no reason other than snarking; when I asked you to stop, you snarked at me.

I get your point - that you meant to say something other than what you said - but it would help your case if you ever took the time to explain yourself with a less-than-pompous attitude. I know I'm not the only one who gets pissed off at you for occasionally being a dick, particularly when this community works well because so few people are.