Vaclav Petras wrote: > > I think this is very common in companies and public institutions. I > > know several companies with much more restrictive guideline (no > > internet connection, USB sticks not allowed, ...). So you can't expect > > that user have a free choice. > > Hi, I don't understand how this actually influence whether GRASS should > have Python inside or outside. For user there is no difference since it > should be managed by sysadmin, so what is sysadmin's decision process?
Well, one factor is that a sysadmin may be willing to install the stock Python version from the MSI on the python.org site (although there are plenty that wouldn't even allow that), but somewhat less willing to install a second copy of Python that's bundled into a relatively-obscure third-party package that no-one (other than one user who's asking to install it) has ever heard of. Sysadmins typically don't perform exhaustive security analysis using debuggers, disassemblers, etc. Approval is more likely to be based upon reputation, third-party reviews, and prejudice. The last one tends to hurt anything that's perceived as opening the system up to additional risks (e.g. languages or other "developer" tools). -- Glynn Clements <gl...@gclements.plus.com> _______________________________________________ grass-dev mailing list grass-dev@lists.osgeo.org http://lists.osgeo.org/mailman/listinfo/grass-dev