Could you please qualify your statement with an example.

In his essay, He has already mentioned that he considers Microwaves, TV's, ATM's as utilities and has no qualms,

>"if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer.",

So, it derives that he is OK with flying on planes (which has proprietary software but is not prone to updates like your PC software is) or maybe an MRI machine or an Xray machine of the sorts for your life threatening scenario you mentioned. These are utilities.

That seems like a really flimsy distinction. I would've assumed the software on planes and MRI machines gets updated.

For that matter, I don't really consider updating my iPhone "normal use" though I'm pretty sure it doesn't get an exception given his remarks about "iThings".

Do you consider updating the apps installed on your iPhone to be a part of "normal use"?

That happens automatically, so don't think much about it. Back when you had to do it manually, I almost never did.

Now, I don't consider updates to be abnormal, but neither is it something I'd ever list in response to "how do you normally use your phone?"

Or my kindle. I update the software on that far less frequently.

So, software upgrades are such a normal part of the day-to-day operation of an iPhone that they happen automatically.

Thus, the iPhone is very much a computer.

Contrast this with -say- most computer monitors. There is software running in them, but -in (almost?) every case- upgrading that software requires either gaining access to programming ports inside the monitor and performing an arcane ritual that might involve specialized hardware or physically swapping out chips.

The bigger issue for planes and MRI machines is that they're not his devices, and are not being set up specifically for him.

I can't speak for the man, but given my understanding of his positions...

If, in some convoluted way, one were faced with the choice between death and purposely installing non-free software on one's own device, I expect RMS would consider you to be a victim and feel sorry for you, but recommend that of course you should do the thing that saves your life.

I would further expect - only slightly more weakly - that he'd take his own advice.

Particularly given that he's himself used a proprietary BIOS when there were no other options, for simple "ability to do computing" which is clearly less severe than preserving life (it's awfully hard to do the one without the other).

I know many people, a lot of doctors, who say that they would prefer to just be allowed to die when the time comes. Not everyone expects to have their lives extended by modern medicine and even if you do get longer to live, it usually isn't very pleasant anyways.

My statement implied that it would take place in an emergency situation before his time is up, not some kind of life-extension technology.

or even just taking cholesterol medicine, or having skin melanoma removed. I doubt many doctors are thinking "whelp, I have high cholesterol, guess it's my time to die"

That doesn't have much to do with him using non-free computer systems though.

As a side note: the pendulum is swinging the other way in regards to cholesterol - so in many cases doctors are not actually concerned about high cholesterol in the same way they used to be.

Oh yeah that is a little more complicated. I'd still imagine that he might choose death, I suppose that will be a real test to his ideology if it ever occurs.

Software doesn't need to be proprietary to save lives.

What is "Give me free software, or give me death"?

I think he'd weigh up the pros and the cons.