3 ms·

> Did they create the problem, Yes. > or did they mirror the reality they saw, where people that installed python3 symlinked python to python3? Evidence ple

by geocar 8y ago

> Did they create the problem, Yes. > or did they mirror the reality they saw, where people that installed python3 symlinked python to python3? Evidence please. I can’t believe any user would do this because it instantly breaks all their scripts. Every python 3 program I have thinks python 3 is #!/usr/bin/python3 > I think it's pretty obvious from this that the Python developers intended to completely replace python 2.x Of course they did, but there’s a good reason there are no directions for installing Python on the python website tell users to do this: As naive and full of hope as the python developers are, they’ve got nothing on the sheer hubris of Linux python packagers who think they’re doing gods work by commenting out random seeds in OpenSSL.

kbenson 8y ago
> I can’t believe any user would do this because it instantly breaks all their scripts. You mean those scripts which they are expected to upgrade to Python 3 using the 2to3 program, which installs with python? The same scripts that Python 3 advocates claim can be fairly easily converted? > Evidence please The fact that Python 3 has a documented option to install as /usr/bin/python and it mentions it on every regular install is evidence. > Every python 3 program I have thinks python 3 is #!/usr/bin/python3 But did they initially? That's the question. We're talking about decisions package managers made years ago, so the status of Python 2 and Python 3 at at that time is what we need to look at. Also, it's important to note, this isn't the first time this has happened. I remember having lots of problems trying to get Python 2 installed on systems that shipped with Python 1. It's entirely possible that the solution to this problem is from when that happened, and rather than rather than come up with a different, Python2 -> Python3 solution they used what was decided at the point they had to support both Python1 and Python2, so the solution be familiar. That's got a fair chance of being likely, since package managers are working on systems on timeframes much longer than the vast majority of system administrators, but still need to support those admins that are managing systems a decade after install.[1] > As naive and full of hope as the python developers are, they’ve got nothing on the sheer hubris of Linux python packagers who think they’re doing gods work by commenting out random seeds in OpenSSL. I'm not really interested in enumerating all the logical fallacies you're falling back on here. That, combined with your denigrating characterization of entire groups of people doesn't really lend itself towards my idea of a useful or constructive conversation, so I think I'm done. Feel free to reply, I'll read it, but I won't be continuing this discussion. 1: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata
- geocar 8y ago
  > But did they initially? That's the question. Yes. > > Evidence please > The fact that Python 3 has a documented option to install as /usr/bin/python and it mentions it on every regular install is evidence. No it's not. Finding a debian mailing list where someone is complaining about incorporating a python3 script "package" that assumes python is /usr/bin/python would be a start. Finding many people complaining would be evidence. > I remember having lots of problems trying to get Python 2 installed on systems that shipped with Python 1. Problems created by package maintainers "shipping" python in the first place.

by geocar 8y ago

kbenson 8y ago

> I can’t believe any user would do this because it instantly breaks all their scripts. You mean those scripts which they are expected to upgrade to Python 3 using the 2to3 program, which installs with python? The same scripts that Python 3 advocates claim can be fairly easily converted? > Evidence please The fact that Python 3 has a documented option to install as /usr/bin/python and it mentions it on every regular install is evidence. > Every python 3 program I have thinks python 3 is #!/usr/bin/python3 But did they initially? That's the question. We're talking about decisions package managers made years ago, so the status of Python 2 and Python 3 at at that time is what we need to look at. Also, it's important to note, this isn't the first time this has happened. I remember having lots of problems trying to get Python 2 installed on systems that shipped with Python 1. It's entirely possible that the solution to this problem is from when that happened, and rather than rather than come up with a different, Python2 -> Python3 solution they used what was decided at the point they had to support both Python1 and Python2, so the solution be familiar. That's got a fair chance of being likely, since package managers are working on systems on timeframes much longer than the vast majority of system administrators, but still need to support those admins that are managing systems a decade after install.[1] > As naive and full of hope as the python developers are, they’ve got nothing on the sheer hubris of Linux python packagers who think they’re doing gods work by commenting out random seeds in OpenSSL. I'm not really interested in enumerating all the logical fallacies you're falling back on here. That, combined with your denigrating characterization of entire groups of people doesn't really lend itself towards my idea of a useful or constructive conversation, so I think I'm done. Feel free to reply, I'll read it, but I won't be continuing this discussion. 1: https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata https://access.redhat.com/support/policy/updates/errata

geocar 8y ago
> But did they initially? That's the question. Yes. > > Evidence please > The fact that Python 3 has a documented option to install as /usr/bin/python and it mentions it on every regular install is evidence. No it's not. Finding a debian mailing list where someone is complaining about incorporating a python3 script "package" that assumes python is /usr/bin/python would be a start. Finding many people complaining would be evidence. > I remember having lots of problems trying to get Python 2 installed on systems that shipped with Python 1. Problems created by package maintainers "shipping" python in the first place.