8 ms·

Something that might help is OS vendors shipping with 3.x installed, rather than 2.x most seem to. OS X ships with 2.7.5. For a casual python user, sticking wi

Something that might help is OS vendors shipping with 3.x installed, rather than 2.x most seem to. OS X ships with 2.7.5. For a casual python user, sticking with what is there and working is safe, especially when the benefits of 3.x are unclear.

hansjorg 13y ago
Canonical has been working on making 3.x default for Ubuntu for a while. From https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Python/3 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Python/3 > It is a release goal for Ubuntu 14.04 LTS to have only Python 3 on the desktop CD images. Also, we won't be allowing Python 2 on the Ubuntu touch images.
- pfh 13y ago
  ... Why would you do that? Why is there an either/or choice? It's like if typing "python" suddenly started running ruby. They're different languages, they should have different names on the command line. Possibly typing "python" should be deprecated, should issue a deprecation warning before starting Python2. It's also a pity Python2 and Python3 source files aren't easily distinguished and will generally produce obscure errors if run using the wrong interpreter.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
claudius 13y ago
OS X (at least the version on the Macbook I got from IT) also ships with a horribly outdated Bash, so I don’t think it healthy to put it up as a standard for anything…
- plorkyeran 13y ago
  In that case (and all of the other GNU stuff) it ships with the final GPLv2 version, since Apple is unwilling to ship GPLv3 code.
  - claudius 13y ago
    Is there a particular reason for that? I can understand not wanting to ship GPLv3 code if it is embedded sufficiently deeply into the hardware, but it shouldn’t be a problem to ship GPLv3 Bash, as the user can change the binary delivered on the harddrive at any time?
    - TylerE 13y ago
      GPL has all kinds of non-corporate friendly clauses. I wouldn't touch GPLv3 code in anything I ship either. Likewise Torvalds refuses to let GPLv3 touch the kernel.
      - SwellJoe 13y ago
        I'm curious what specific issue Apple has with GPLv3 for something like bash? It seems to me that if they're providing the source, and not modifying the copyright/license, there would be no issue. The patent language only applies to the program itself. I guess one could view it as simple paranoia on the part of their lawyers...they took years to start shipping any GPL (v2) code on the Mac. It's actually news to me that it has bash out of the box, now; last time I used Mac OS X, it still had tcsh and an abominable development environment and I hated it.
      - cma 13y ago
        Torvalds didn't put the "or any later version" clause in the Kernel's GPL license. And he hasn't required copyright assignments. Because of this, the kernel simply can't be converted to GPLv3. You would never be able to contact all the individual copyright holders and have them agree with complete consensus to re-licensing.
        TylerE 13y ago
        "I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code." He's spoken out against it personally - he cleary _doesn't like it_.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
falcolas 13y ago
Yes, it absolutely would. Particularly since that would mean that packages for 3.x would be available then; something that's not there now. If you want to migrate to Python 3, you have to re-compile any libraries you want to use.
deckiedan 13y ago
Yes, I need a lot of my code to 'just work' out of the box on OSX, so I'm sticking with 2.7. I really wish Apple had put python3 in Mavericks, as /usr/bin/python3, rather than the default. sigh

hansjorg 13y ago

Canonical has been working on making 3.x default for Ubuntu for a while. From https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Python/3 https://wiki.ubuntu.com/Python/3 > It is a release goal for Ubuntu 14.04 LTS to have only Python 3 on the desktop CD images. Also, we won't be allowing Python 2 on the Ubuntu touch images.

pfh 13y ago
... Why would you do that? Why is there an either/or choice? It's like if typing "python" suddenly started running ruby. They're different languages, they should have different names on the command line. Possibly typing "python" should be deprecated, should issue a deprecation warning before starting Python2. It's also a pity Python2 and Python3 source files aren't easily distinguished and will generally produce obscure errors if run using the wrong interpreter.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

claudius 13y ago

OS X (at least the version on the Macbook I got from IT) also ships with a horribly outdated Bash, so I don’t think it healthy to put it up as a standard for anything…

plorkyeran 13y ago
In that case (and all of the other GNU stuff) it ships with the final GPLv2 version, since Apple is unwilling to ship GPLv3 code.
- claudius 13y ago
  Is there a particular reason for that? I can understand not wanting to ship GPLv3 code if it is embedded sufficiently deeply into the hardware, but it shouldn’t be a problem to ship GPLv3 Bash, as the user can change the binary delivered on the harddrive at any time?
  - TylerE 13y ago
    GPL has all kinds of non-corporate friendly clauses. I wouldn't touch GPLv3 code in anything I ship either. Likewise Torvalds refuses to let GPLv3 touch the kernel.
    - SwellJoe 13y ago
      I'm curious what specific issue Apple has with GPLv3 for something like bash? It seems to me that if they're providing the source, and not modifying the copyright/license, there would be no issue. The patent language only applies to the program itself. I guess one could view it as simple paranoia on the part of their lawyers...they took years to start shipping any GPL (v2) code on the Mac. It's actually news to me that it has bash out of the box, now; last time I used Mac OS X, it still had tcsh and an abominable development environment and I hated it.
    - cma 13y ago
      Torvalds didn't put the "or any later version" clause in the Kernel's GPL license. And he hasn't required copyright assignments. Because of this, the kernel simply can't be converted to GPLv3. You would never be able to contact all the individual copyright holders and have them agree with complete consensus to re-licensing.
      - TylerE 13y ago
        "I think it's insane to require people to make their private signing keys available, for example. I wouldn't do it. So I don't think the GPL v3 conversion is going to happen for the kernel, since I personally don't want to convert any of my code." He's spoken out against it personally - he cleary _doesn't like it_.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

falcolas 13y ago

Yes, it absolutely would. Particularly since that would mean that packages for 3.x would be available then; something that's not there now. If you want to migrate to Python 3, you have to re-compile any libraries you want to use.

deckiedan 13y ago

Yes, I need a lot of my code to 'just work' out of the box on OSX, so I'm sticking with 2.7. I really wish Apple had put python3 in Mavericks, as /usr/bin/python3, rather than the default. sigh