> Right, and I agree with it. However, that is HP's choice, and while > there is a theoretical possibility that users break their systems, in > practice, most users are too scared to actually attempt such breakage. > > However, "OEM ready" sounds like a good goal to achieve.
Agreed too - I don't think we have ever agreed so much Martin :) Most of the issues discussed so far don't bother us at all, but in the back of my mind has always been what would happen if an "OEM Ready" guideline conflicts with what we would otherwise choose to do. FYI, I'm looking at google's HTML version of the MS doc via googling '"oem ready program" filetype:docx' and hitting the "view as HTML" link. The only conflict I see here is the requirement to install into "\Program Files" and I'm surprised that hasn't been raised in this thread. An interesting question we might need to face is exactly how much being "OEM Ready" is worth to Python itself if it requires us to make compromises we wouldn't otherwise make. But given Gerald hasn't mentioned this requirement, I must acknowledge it is still only a theoretical concern. However, should such a situation arise, my position would probably be that unless it was MS suggesting it be preloaded on *all* PCs, we should sacrifice that part of being "OEM Ready" to best look after the interests of people who seek it out for download. Cheers, Mark _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
