[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.

[eimrine]

> which is proven to make you far safer on the roads because you can't access the firmware of the device.

I don't like the wording. ABS is safer not because I can not alter the firmware, it is safer on different reason.

> 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?

I see benefits of this approach in learning: I do not want to learn any proprietary framework. I do not care about the doctor's software, he is free to learn anything.

[vel0city]

Language ambiguities are leading to confusion, my bad. I get it. With this sentence:

> 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

The "because you can't access" is relating back to the "you're foregoing safety equipment" part of the sentence. You're choosing to not use proven safety equipment because you can't access the firmware of the ABS controller. I do agree it is not the fact that the ABS system is closed that makes it safer; it could easily be an open-source/FLOSS firmware and still provide similar safety features.

> I do not want to learn any proprietary framework.

I don't need to learn about the intricate details of how ABS systems work in order to benefit from having one. The doctors using those machines aren't necessarily knowing about how the ECG monitor actually takes the samples from the leads and renders the lines on the screen, but they benefit from having one of those tools. Do you also not use plain metal tools unless you completely understand their mixture and how the metal is made and fully comprehend how they're forged/machined/etc? Or do you sometimes just accept "yes, this is a screwdriver, it can drive screws."

I don't know everything about how the local metro train system works and probably wouldn't be able to know everything about it, but I'll still ride on the train. I learn to use the resources available to me, even if some parts are opaque to me.