6 ms·

The major takeaway from this is: if your project is mission critical, then don't depend on free/open source infrastructure. It's not like there is a "rep" you

The major takeaway from this is: if your project is mission critical, then don't depend on free/open source infrastructure. It's not like there is a "rep" you can call at "python" if this is now breaking your build process. edit: almost all of these replies have missed my point. Yes, you can still use python2, but if you depended on pip for your build process (which I would consider "infrastructure"), then you are out of luck for this and there is nobody you can call to fix it for you.

sergiomattei 6y ago
No, the major takeaway is "update your software". Damn it, Python 3 has been out for years now. There is zero excuse.
itamarst 6y ago
It still works, they're just not doing new releases.
philtar 6y ago
Or, you know, upgrade in the 12 years you had to upgrade since Python announced it was moving Python 3.
- digitalsushi 6y ago
  My problems are largely coupled heavily into the python2 that my package manager is written in, which as far as my team tells me, is python2. And that it's becoming difficult to integrate against products we have to continue to release for another five years of corporate sunsetting.
etc-hosts 6y ago
Being diligent and internally mirroring your python dependencies is the correct thing to do, but this is a different issue.
njharman 6y ago
Yeah, its not like you access to and the sources of all versions of Python. No proprietary vendor has ever revoked licenses, pulled downloads, version or timebombed binaries, stopped support for eol products, auto upgraded, etc. Yes open-source is clearly worse for giving you the right and means. Vs being subject to the whims and profitability of a company.
- njharman 6y ago
  Also get the furk out of here with your 90s era FUD. No one believes it anymore.
  - thepasswordis 6y ago
    It is literally happening right now. The people who have demanded that everybody switch to python3 instead of simply forking python have proven the FUD true.
    - luhn 6y ago
      If you want forks there are forks. Off the top of my head, Redhat is supporting Python 2 for several more years and there's a project called Tauthon [1] that is "Python 2.8" in spirit. I'm sure there's more efforts I'm not aware of. [1] https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon
    - crad 6y ago
      The push for Python 3 has been happening for over 10 years at this point. At what point do you expect people to be able to stop supporting a very outdated distribution of any software? 6 years ago my company switched to Python 3.5 and there was a big push in the community at that point to move away from Python 2. I mean Python 3 came out around the same time as Windows Vista, which has been unsupported since 2017.
Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
You are confusing "no longer supported" with "no longer works".
CamouflagedKiwi 6y ago
Good luck calling your "rep" at nearly any commercial software supplier and explaining you're using a decade-old version of their software a year past its EOL date and would they kindly provide you support. It doesn't matter whether it's open source or not, there has to be a line on these things, and there's been more than enough time given here.
- detaro 6y ago
  > It doesn't matter whether it's open source or not It actually does: with open-source you are not bound to the vendor if it isn't cooperative, but can pay anyone else willing and able to do the work. Plenty consultancies will happily fix old bugs or backport fixes in open-source software for you, but can't do much about closed software you depend on.
detaro 6y ago
> Yes, you can still use python2, but if you depended on pip for your build process (which I would consider "infrastructure"), then you are out of luck for this Using python2 is acceptable for you, but using an old version of pip is not acceptable?
j1elo 6y ago
Well, I'd say no surprises here, because as most other Open Source software / infrastructure, Python is provided under a license that offers the software as-is and doesn't promise "warranty of fitness for any particular purpose". Technically the complaint here is against pip, but I guess they have similar terms and conditions. On the other hand, you would have enjoyed a royalty-free, world-wide permission to use, distribute, and modify the code base at your will. So I'd say, not a bad wager if you're willing to do the extra work of keeping your software up to date over time (which otherwise you'd have been paying someone to do, in case of a proprietary infrastructure).

sergiomattei 6y ago

No, the major takeaway is "update your software". Damn it, Python 3 has been out for years now. There is zero excuse.

itamarst 6y ago

It still works, they're just not doing new releases.

philtar 6y ago

Or, you know, upgrade in the 12 years you had to upgrade since Python announced it was moving Python 3.

digitalsushi 6y ago
My problems are largely coupled heavily into the python2 that my package manager is written in, which as far as my team tells me, is python2. And that it's becoming difficult to integrate against products we have to continue to release for another five years of corporate sunsetting.

etc-hosts 6y ago

Being diligent and internally mirroring your python dependencies is the correct thing to do, but this is a different issue.

njharman 6y ago

Yeah, its not like you access to and the sources of all versions of Python. No proprietary vendor has ever revoked licenses, pulled downloads, version or timebombed binaries, stopped support for eol products, auto upgraded, etc. Yes open-source is clearly worse for giving you the right and means. Vs being subject to the whims and profitability of a company.

njharman 6y ago
Also get the furk out of here with your 90s era FUD. No one believes it anymore.
- thepasswordis 6y ago
  It is literally happening right now. The people who have demanded that everybody switch to python3 instead of simply forking python have proven the FUD true.
  - luhn 6y ago
    If you want forks there are forks. Off the top of my head, Redhat is supporting Python 2 for several more years and there's a project called Tauthon [1] that is "Python 2.8" in spirit. I'm sure there's more efforts I'm not aware of. [1] https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon https://github.com/naftaliharris/tauthon
  - crad 6y ago
    The push for Python 3 has been happening for over 10 years at this point. At what point do you expect people to be able to stop supporting a very outdated distribution of any software? 6 years ago my company switched to Python 3.5 and there was a big push in the community at that point to move away from Python 2. I mean Python 3 came out around the same time as Windows Vista, which has been unsupported since 2017.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago

You are confusing "no longer supported" with "no longer works".

CamouflagedKiwi 6y ago

Good luck calling your "rep" at nearly any commercial software supplier and explaining you're using a decade-old version of their software a year past its EOL date and would they kindly provide you support. It doesn't matter whether it's open source or not, there has to be a line on these things, and there's been more than enough time given here.

detaro 6y ago
> It doesn't matter whether it's open source or not It actually does: with open-source you are not bound to the vendor if it isn't cooperative, but can pay anyone else willing and able to do the work. Plenty consultancies will happily fix old bugs or backport fixes in open-source software for you, but can't do much about closed software you depend on.

detaro 6y ago

> Yes, you can still use python2, but if you depended on pip for your build process (which I would consider "infrastructure"), then you are out of luck for this Using python2 is acceptable for you, but using an old version of pip is not acceptable?

j1elo 6y ago

Well, I'd say no surprises here, because as most other Open Source software / infrastructure, Python is provided under a license that offers the software as-is and doesn't promise "warranty of fitness for any particular purpose". Technically the complaint here is against pip, but I guess they have similar terms and conditions. On the other hand, you would have enjoyed a royalty-free, world-wide permission to use, distribute, and modify the code base at your will. So I'd say, not a bad wager if you're willing to do the extra work of keeping your software up to date over time (which otherwise you'd have been paying someone to do, in case of a proprietary infrastructure).