[vel0city]

> Freedom includes doing things that others don't like --- and tolerating the opposite too.

So I should tolerate people driving on public streets without insurance and without a license? I should tolerate people driving the wrong way on the highway? I should tolerate whatever emissions come from the tailpipe of someone's car? I should tolerate sompeone driving a car that nobody has touched the brakes on for a decade and they're about ready to fail at any moment? I should tolerate people driving at night without headlights on? I should tolerate people driving at any blood alcohol level?

All of these are laws which limit freedom in the name of safety. You're arguing you'd prefer freedom over safety. Personally, I prefer all of these tradeoffs of freedom over safety, at least when driving on public streets. If you don't like these regulations, don't drive on public streets.

Requiring a driver's license, having emissions controls, creating traffic standards for driving on public streets are examples authoritarian socialist dystopia I guess.

[eimrine]

As far as I have understood, the previous commenter used to talk about FLOSS only (which is rather wise then not if you do value RMS' philosophy) and you have turned the discussion into absurd (kind of driving without license which has nothing to do with wiseness).

[vel0city]

To me they brought it to that extreme when referencing authoritarian socialist dystopia when originally talking about carburetors. Hard to not see it going that direction about rights/freedoms when not having the ability to tune your carb means you're encouraging an authoritarian socialist dystopia.

[eimrine]

It has been meant that there is no any car with FLOSS injector software. Every injector hardware devise has proprietary software. How on Earth can I drive an injector car if any proprietary software is not an option for me?

[vel0city]

They weren't talking about FLOSS here. They weren't talking about free or proprietary software, they wanted no software

> Personally, I prefer no computer control.

They're not arguing for free software controlling their car, they're arguing for no software controlling the car. No software controlling the car means generally less safe cars with higher emissions on the road. Higher emissions hurt the people around them. Not having common safety systems like ABS and traction control make the cars harder to operate on normal roadways, leading to a higher likelihood of collisions.

They're arguing they should be free to operate less-safe cars which emit higher emissions on public roadways, and that everyone around should just accept it. Arguing otherwise is arguing for an authoritarian socialist dystopia.

[eimrine]

> no software controlling the car.

I understand that my opinion is heavily biased to RMS' philosophy, but if looking the facts, we can see that if the car (engine controller, ABS, comfort controller, pesky notifications about belts/weather/maintenance) would be controlled by FLOSS it is controlled by user (not manufacturer) de-facto. All the cons of software just disappear in FLOSS: if you don't like the pesky notifications or anything else - you just remove few lines from the source code, recompile and replace the binary in your car.

I really prefer driving carburetor Volga with no software goodies just because there is no any car which has a software which let me use the software instead of being used by it. And I really prefer absence of modern safety like ABS if the safety is controlled by software manufacturer only. I know that my car has significant higher emissions (not to mention efficiency and safety) and I am a big fan of global warming movement but all I can do is to use my car as little as possible because using proprietary software is bigger sin for me than to poison our planet.

> They're arguing they should be free to operate less-safe cars which emit higher emissions on public roadways

I also talk about this, but in a slightly different way.

[vel0city]

> And I really prefer absence of modern safety like ABS if the safety is controlled by software manufacturer only.

I'm really wondering where this mindset ends though. You're foregoing safety equipment which is proven to make you far safer on the roads because you can't access the firmware of the device. You're choosing a much older car with far worse safety designs because of this. How far would you take this idea? If you were seriously injured and in the hospital, would you refuse for the doctors to use machines which contain non-free software to save your life? Would you rather die than interface with non-free software?

Don't get me wrong, I'm a generally FOSS supporting person and agree with many of RMS' ideas surrounding software freedom. If there were two cars out there which were roughly the same, one with free software and one with closed, I'd pick the free software version. But in the end I value my family's safety far more than my opinion on free software, so it is an obvious choice to choose the safer car.