An unconfigurable software is not a free software
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires
An unconfigurable software is not a free software
The NetworkManager in Ubuntu makes me annoyed. I guess here is right place to complain this issue.
It took me a whole evening to seek the configuration file for NetworkManager's dnsmasq (actually dnsmasq-base). The result was bad. Seems not a file for configuring 'dnsmasq', even though I created dnsmasq.conf in /etc .
The dnsmasq is not complete, being only dnsmas-base. What's worse is NetworkManager doesn't allow fully installed dnsmasq. See Ubuntu 's page:
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/Dnsmasq
\\\
Note that the package "dnsmasq" interferes with Network Manager which can use "dnsmasq-base" to provide DHCP services when sharing an internet connection. Therefore, if you use network manager (fine in simple set-ups only), then install dnsmasq-base, but not dnsmasq. If you have a more complicated set-up, uninstall network manager, use dnsmasq, or similar software (bind9, dhcpd, etc), and configure things by hand.
\\\
Are they conflicted? And why?
Thus I was looking for solution in NetworkManager. However there are very few places to configure NetworkManager except a few lines!!
https://help.ubuntu.com/community/NetworkManager
This is what I want to argue,
An unconfigurable / unhackable software is not a free software.
It limits the use for end users. Don't tell me that I can modify the source code or something. The majority of users don't have the ability to manage the C language. Right?
I know NetworkManager is so convenient to setup wifi connection. And I know I can just change to an alternative.
But the thing is, it finally just constrained the freedom for users!!! And it just interferes too much to the availability of other softwares.
No, it's free software because you have all four freedoms when using it.
Whether or not it's good software is another topic.
NetworkManager's free software, as are the configuration front-ends you're talking about.
... But yea, NetworkManager is *really* annoying to configure in anything except for GNOME (or network-indicator).
wpa_supplicant & ip FTW!
"An unconfigurable software is not a free software"
Sorry. Flat out wrong. Read this:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/imperfection-isnt-oppression.en.html
For one thing I have to agree, NetworkManager is troublesome if one
wants advanced setups while keeping the base packages untouched.
However, it's still free software, and if you continue reading, I'm sure
you'll understand what I'm talking about.
Anyway, to give you an idea, when I switched to Wicd, since it just uses
ifconfig and such tools, I had the easiest time of my life when
configuring IPTables to restore the rules I wrote for it everytime the
system would start. :D
However, it's still free software, because everyone receives the four
essential software freedoms IN THE SOURCE CODE (this is why developers
AREN'T obligated to provide compiled code for download). HOWEVER, people
aren't obligated to use ALL the freedoms, because these freedoms fit
best for each purpose, and everyone has different levels of interaction
with computers.
I have seen such "Non-customizable software at run level isn't free
software" statements quite frequently lately, along with ones like:
* "If it's not focused on security, it's non-free software".
* "If a free software supporter or activist doesn't study and compile
software from source, then he isn't a free software supporter or
activist, or he is not eligible to be talking about such subject".
* "If the software tries to do a lot of things, and not just only one,
then it's non-free software". (I can put anti-PulseAudio and
anti-SystemD as similar arguments here). This is a modularity issue, not
a software freedom issue.
"Unconfigurable"? I beg to differ! You can configure any libre program to the greatest extent by modifying the source code. Is that convenient? Possibly not. But the program is not designed in a way that restricts you from doing whatever you like with it.
> It limits the use for end users. Don't tell me that I can modify the source code or something. The majority of users don't have the ability to manage the C language. Right?
You know, a lot of users don't even understand how to use programs. Heck, RMS himself has no idea whatsoever how to install any GNU/Linux system, and always has someone else do it for him. That doesn't mean that the various installers like Ubiquity are non-libre! It just means that not everyone knows how to do every job.
Additionally, your reasoning here goes down a huge slippery slope. If any lack of configurability renders a program non-libre, then every program that has ever existed can be said to be "non-libre". Why? Because there are always certain things that are hard-coded and can't be changed without editing the source code. There is no way around this; it's completely impractical to make everything configurable without editing the source code. I'll give a few examples from programs I've worked on:
- ReTux doesn't give you the option to play with 10 health, have a jump height of 50 tiles, run over 9000 miles per hour, choose the transition effects between rooms...
- Project: Starfighter doesn't give you the option to choose your shield amount, shoot 10 bullets at once, change shop prices...
- Pacewar doesn't give you the option to play with hundreds of ships, choose how the nebula layers are positioned, play with an invincible ship...
- Naev doesn't give you the option to hire mercenaries to help you, customize most text, add new missions...
Great ! Let's Concretize the issue. I see the focus is on _whether the behaviors of NetworkManager are just imperfect or confining user's choices _?
Before debating these questions should be answered (preferably by the authors of NetworkManager):
Why is NetworkManager interfering with Dnsmasq?
What's the reason that NetworkManager provides few configuration opportunities? Any difficulties?
Why should NetworkManager forcefully bundle a partial other software: dnsmasq-base (at least at a first place) ?
If NetworkManager is the rival of Dnsmasq, then why does NetworkManager contain a partial Dnsmasq? And hence, limiting Dnsmasq-base's configuration ability. No one could configure such Dnsmasq-base. And further limiting the full Dnsmasq (I just can't set self-defined DNS on my laptop via dnsmasq-base)
No body found it weird?:-(
Continued...
Many thanks for jxself's offering, being resourceful.
However, I don't think "lacking configuration opportunities is a sort of software imperfection". Sorry, I wasn't meant to cry for some kinds of functions of the software. I just need control of my piece of the software on top of my laptop. This is the issue of violating the user freedom.
Though some users may say what they want is just simplicity, those self-claimed respect-user-freedom software should open its doors for fine tuning. Don't take for granted that only professionals need to tweak.
A developer whose software never teach their users the way to configure the software, is not a freedom -driven developer and designer.
Cheers
Thanks for reading
"I just need control of my piece of the software on top of my laptop. This is the issue of violating the user freedom."
Sorry, but you do have that already. Even if it's an absolutely horrible piece of *@(%^ it remains a free program. It's all covered in that article that a free program is still free regardless of how good it is.
You have the control. Software freedom is defined by the 4 things
*you can use for any purpose
*you can copy
*you can modify
*you can copy modified
If you have constructive criticism, file a bug. Upstream if you want something to actually happen.
So it can be free software and be of "bad" quality, and even malicious (until detected) after all.
Funny, I too had some of those assumptions about free software, even though now that I think about it, it's pretty obvious.
network-manager (which I couldn't install in my netinstall btw) for example seems to be good for GNOME, and for basic setups. I suspect that it didn'thelp when I tried to modify the /etc/network/interfaces file to create a bridge, which would then be considered advanced usage.
But it's a bit like saying you can't do image manipulation in Writer as much as in GIMP, for example.
It's not limiting your freedom, it's what it's designed to do.
Well, it's been....almost all debates finally turned out to be debating one's ability.
Please answer my questions, just from the technical aspects:
Why is NetworkManager interfering with Dnsmasq?
What's the reason that NetworkManager provides few configuration opportunities? Any difficulties?
Why should NetworkManager forcefully bundle a partial other software: dnsmasq-base (at least at a first place) ?
If NetworkManager is the rival of Dnsmasq, then why does NetworkManager contain a partial Dnsmasq? And hence, limiting Dnsmasq-base's configuration ability. No one could configure such Dnsmasq-base. And further limiting the full Dnsmasq (I just can't set self-defined DNS on my laptop via dnsmasq-base)
Well, on the other hand, okay, let's not argue about whether a such software is a free software . A software without sufficient configuration is not respecting user's freedom anyway. Regardless of talking a software"good" or not so good.
Think about *nix philosophy: Do one thing and do it well. If interfering other software is an unavoidable design / tech obstacle, please explain.
"Well, on the other hand, okay, let's not argue about whether a such software is a free software . A software without sufficient configuration is not respecting user's freedom anyway."
You say to not talk of it, and then immediately re-assert your argument again. A free program is free (and therefore respects your freedom) regardless of how configurable it is. Any other argument is going to be a non-starter, sorry.
"What's the reason that NetworkManager provides few configuration opportunities?"
No one has taken the time to do it? It seems to be that your questions of "Why is NetworkManager like this" are perhaps best directed to the people that develop NetworkManager, not the Trisquel community. See https://wiki.gnome.org/Projects/NetworkManager#Getting_in_Touch
What I can say, though, is: Free software isn't perfect. Free software is sometimes uglier than proprietary software. It is sometimes more expensive than proprietary software. It is sometimes less functional than proprietary software. It is sometimes less configurable than proprietary software. Free software is sometimes buggier than proprietary software. (Sometimes people say free software has more than our fair share of bugs.) But it's always going to be free. To say otherwise is disingenuous. To *think* otherwise is to buy in to the promise of "open source" which promises better quality, higher reliability, etc. but this isn't always the case, as you are seeing with NetworkManager. See:
https://mako.cc/writing/hill-when_free_software_isnt_better.html
Whether something is free software has nothing to do with the *nix philosophy. NetworkManager is free software; you are able to exercise all of the four freedoms.
- Vous devez vous identifier ou créer un compte pour écrire des commentaires