* Python <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [061125 14:47]: > On Sat, 2006-11-25 at 00:10 -0600, Luke Paireepinart wrote: > > Although I'm prettty sure most modern linux distros come with Python > > already installed, so you don't need to be concerned about those linux > > folk. > > I think Windows is the only major OS distribution that still omits > Python. > > > Except, I find that it's more trouble for linuxers to get packages > > for > > their python scripts, because they have to make-install etc. whereas > > windows people have a nice friendly, > > fuzzy little GUI installer for the majority of python packages. > > The belief that all Linux software must be compiled and installed > manually is a common misconception. The major Linux distributions all
Even worse is the common misconception that this is even a problem. One big benefit of this is, that package authors are forced to consider the built and install environment. As a cynic, and this is only a rule of thumb, the following points usually means force built/install automation: a) commercial software => usually smaller user population (and well, Windows does usually come preinstalled, so the population that does Windows installations is extremly small). b) closed source software => it does not matter how ugly it is, as nobody sees it. And providing a sensible environment is often not considered relevant by management. (E.g. I once did revamp the build system of a commercial closed source application, but I had to hide the work hours in a "paid-for" project) c) Windows => Windows has no systematic filesystem layout, is still having problems with filesystem permissions, and lacks a standard compilation environment. These are additative, IMHO ;) Yeah, I know there are exceptions, but over a decade these points have been validated in many, many cases. > have servers with thousands of packages that install easily, either from > a command line or a GUI interface. For my Fedora laptop: > yum install python-kid > checks for any dependencies (e.g. python-elementtree) and installs all > needed packages. (There is no need for the package to have been written > in Python. I just used a Python example since this is a Python list.) > Most Linux packages have available source code and you *can* install > from source, but that is not forced on you. Basically software installation on Linux (and to a lesser degree on commercial Unixes) is way less flashy than on Windows, but at the same time more advanced. Automatic fetching and dependency resolution have been standard features for Linux distribution for years now. E.g. Installing package B that breaks package A is considered a bug on Debian. Installing package B on Windows that replaces common DLLs and breaks half of the system is "state of the art". > > If a Python package is not available through yum, installation from the > Cheese Shop is still quite simple, and certainly no more difficult than > on Windows. As noted above if there a no distribution specific packages, we can fallback on a number of Python specific ways to build packages: a) easyinstall. Autofetching, building and installing, including dependencies. b) eggs. binary and system-independant prepackaged Python packages. Including version management of a given package. c) distutils setup.py => no autofetching of dependencies. automatic build + install. Btw, these are also available ob Windows, as these are Python specific ways to handle packages. OTOH they are hindered on Windows by the fact that there is no standard compiler environment (see above) that is always available. Getting a VS NET 7.1 license in the office (a big international company *g*) takes days. It's a pain, but it's easier to patch the installed python config to compile via mingw. And if I think about that one, yes, the private closed source packages that are Windows specific have the worst buildsystem. Aka a README where one can copy & paste CL.EXE invocation from. Cool, not. Andreas _______________________________________________ Tutor maillist - Tutor@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/tutor
