On Wednesday 13 April 2005 9:11 pm, Roger Binns wrote: > "Terry Reedy" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message > news:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > I guess I don't understand some people's determination to not have users > > install fully useable Python on their Windows machines. > > Ok, here is how you install BitPim which contains a frozen Python: > > - Download and run the setup.exe from www.bitpim.org (The > instructions are the equivalent on Linux and Mac) >
Here is the situation I see. I use debian linux systems. Installing all the dependencies is trivial and if your program has a debian package it would be a single command. The reason I don't like these programs that built the runtime, static link in a bunch of stuff etc is that it is a pain to upgrade later. If there is a security fix to python 2.4 I know there is ONE copy installed on the system and that updating it will fix it. If there is a problem with libpng, libjpeg, kdelibs, zope, apache etc the same is still true, there is only ONE copy of those items on the system and with a single command all of them can be updated and fixed. Under windows I can see why you would want stand alone binaries since it has no method for dealing with dependencies the way that the bsds and linuxes can. However for a unix product I always want items to be in their seperate parts since it makes my life as a programmer and admin a heck of a lot easier. Actually I tend to avoid any software that is not in the debian main archives since then it is more of a pain to deal with later. Keeping track of security updates, feature updates etc for a bunch of computers with a lot of software from different locations is a royal pain in the neck. With windows it is worse since you don't even have a centralized update system. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
