You must pay $99 to be able to load apps onto an iDevice with XCode. If you want to do it for free, you have to jailbreak. If you download XCode and write an app, you are limited to the simulator unless you pay.

You can afford a $1000 phone but can't afford $99 to write software for it? My point is proven; you're all a bunch of cheapskates complaining about the price of popcorn at the movies.

If you want to develop Free Software for IOS - remember, that's what the OP complained about, and the only point I was addressing - then the only thing stopping you is your moth-infested wallet.

Why would i want to start out my small experiment with investing 1000 euros just to be able to program?

Why would you splash out 1000 euros on a new Mac when clearly you're comfortable with an "old thinkpad which you got for 50 bucks"?

Buy an old Mac. You can get a mini on ebay for about $200 that will run Xcode. Or buy a broken one for $50 and fix it.

Do you want to write Free Software for IOS? Nothing is stopping you, other than your aversion to spending money.

Can you fathom why FLOSS users balk at paying $100/year + $1000 one time fee for access to free software that is always $0 free as long as they STAY AWAY from Apple?

I cannot fathom why you keep avoiding the crux of the argument, which is that freedom and frugality are different goals. If you want to create Free Software on IOS devices, then you can. You just need to spend money. You don't want to spend money? Perhaps you're not the model champion of Free Software you pretend to be on /.

I predate Linux. I remember when UNIX was "Live Free or Die". Then Linux came along and it was "Spend $0 or Die". The message of freedom got diluted. The concept of open collaboration between multi-nationals was disbanded. The new generation think it's all about getting something for nothing, rather than getting freedom at any price. You miss the point.

Let me get this straight. You truly cannot fathom why FLOSS developers

I cannot fathom why FLOSS developers claim it's all about liberty and freedom, then balk at the price.

It's obviously all about the price.

This is another thing that irks me about the bitchers and moaners. Open Source Software is supposed to be about the liberty of the software; the ability to modify the software, to share the software, etc.

But when it all comes down to brass tacks, you're complaining about the $1000 required for the development hardware. Another person above you complains about the $99/year fee required to get the signing certificate. It's no different to getting an SSL cert from Verisign; the $99 just establishes a level of trust between you and Apple.

The model I proposed above - where you simply distribute your apps in source code bundles, rather than as binaries through the Apple App Store - would work. It truly promotes the actual values of Open Source Software. You could freely distribute Libre apps outside the Apple App Store. But you guys are complaining about the dollars.

This is why the FLOSS community has been tarred and feathered as cheapskates. You''re more interested in getting software "for free" (no cost) rather than "with freedom". What is the true price of freedom? Apparently around here it's $0.

That is exactly how I feel the ipad is. Polished on the outside, secret on the inside

It's not secret on the inside. The hardware and software APIs are extremely well documented. You are confusing your ignorance of the product with an imagined secrecy.

I am not allowed to peek inside nor add any update not approved by the manufacturer

You are allowed to peek inside - Apple even has a free developer program and downloadable tools to let you do exactly that. Download the free OS developer tools, develop any app you like, and install your app on your IOS device.

The only caveat is that Apple won't help you install "whatever update you like". And you most certainly can't sell products on the Apple App Store that don't conform to their rules. But there's nothing stopping *you* from installing *your* apps on *your* devices.

This is what irks me about the supposedly Free Software and Open Source advocates when it comes to Apple's IOS. Free Software could really go to town on IOS. For example, Apple won't distribute MAME through their App Store; and fair enough too. But anybody with a free developer account could compile the source code for MAME for IOS (assuming it exists) into an app, sign that build with their developer certificate, then upload the binary onto their own phone.

Instead people bitch-and-moan that they can't use Apple's App Store to distribute binaries. Why is that a problem? This is a community built on open source and free software. So why not distribute the apps as source. If open-source is such a big deal, why the fascination with bundling everything up as binaries and asking Apple to distribute it?

So you could have any app you like on your iPad or iPhone. The only barrier to entry is you need to know how to compile and install software. Is that really a problem in the Free Software world which has distros like Gentoo? It would keep out all the annoying non-developers too. It would be like the good old days of Linux when everybody actually knew UNIX; before the hoi-polloi found out about it and fucked it up.

They have a history of making inferior products, the iPods were never as good as the competition failing to support the same DRM that everybody else supported and not including a user replaceable battery for instance.

Total rubbish. I was an anti-iPod cheerleader for years. Must have Ogg Vorbis support, never will support DRM, etc. Chanted the same "freedom or die" nonsense that /. championed. Even bought the nomad, irivers, etc. I hated them all so I eventually caved and bought an iPod.

I then kicked myself for being an idiot all those years. The iPod was the superior product all along. My bias prevented me from seeing that. I didn't even realise you could play non-DRM music on the iPod. I was that ignorant of the product; in part because I listened to ignorant blogger comments instead of doing my own research.

The "Apple is inferior" and "Apple over charges for making it pretty" chants are getting old. Nobody believes it anymore. The MacBook, the iPod, the iPhone, the iPad... they're competitive on price and superior in quality. People are buying Apple again and again because they like what they get.

The anti-Apple crowd is now full of religious nuts because they won't admit the blindingly obvious; Apple is making great products. And the constant barrage of "bah, it's just fanbois, idiots, hipsters, brainwashed sheeple" sounds more and more like sour grapes every day.

So you are in fact saying the definition is whatever you want it to be so that it says you're right and any attempt to argue otherwise you'll simply say you meant a different definition of the term?

Yes, you've got me, your dazzling intellect has uncovered my shoddy logic. I am actually a moon child who believes that my soul is formed in the hearts of the atom-god, and "ultimate cause" is actually the name of an anti-evolution cabal, of which I am the grand zombie. Our mission is to destroy philosophy with cheap bar-room rhetoric. And I would have got away with it, if it wasn't for you meddling kids.

Bravo, good sir. You are a worthy adversary. I tip my hat to you. Now run along and find other foes to slay with your wit and charm. I am vanquished.

No, that's the argument made by every biologist out there. It's called evolution

If you haven't read Dawkin's Selfish Gene you really should. It's an excellent book.

Dawkins was merely pointing out specific quirks of evolution and what drives it

Because it's quite clear you haven't read it.

So are you in fact denying evolution?... so basically you're arguing that humans have a soul ... please don't tell me you're one of those who believes in atom level human identical philosophical zombies.

Now you are just being foolish. Be serious or be quiet.

I did, google provides ambiguous results none of which are from philosophy

Ambiguity is a defining characteristic of philosophy.

Then please define "ultimate cause" specifically and exactly.

It's a standard term in philosophy. Your ignorance is not my problem.

www.google.com.

Not really. I simply pointed out that everything we are is written in our DNA and that DNA was created by a specific process. We are machines created for a purpose.

As I said, Dawkins makes a similar argument in the Selfish Gene.

So by your logic the AI and humans are the results of the evolutionary process which created humans. That process is in turn the result of the physical parameters of the universe. We're not quite sure what that is the result of but the specific parameters are quite likely random (cue anthropic principle). Which in turn means the whole argument has no point.

Except for the last sentence (which is a non-sequitir) you are talking about determinism. Which as I've already said, is a question we are unlikely to have answered in our lifetimes.

And as I pointed out in another post the ultimate cause of humans is evolution and DNA.

And I already replied to you.

We have a cause ...

A "cause" is not the same thing as "ultimate cause". I've also pointed this out in another post.

I disagree with that. A man can cause a child...

"Ultimate cause" has a specific meaning in philosophy. It doesn't have the same meaning as "create" or "conceive". A man is not the "ultimate cause" of a child. But a man is the ultimate cause of a machine.

When code becomes self-modifying, it can go beyond the human mind

Code can only self-modify within the confines of parameters set by the human programmer. Therefore the ultimate cause of the modified code was the human.

It's the same as creating a sharpened rock as a tool, then using the tool to sharpen a stick into a hunting spear. The rock didn't create the spear. The human did.