On Sun, Jun 27, 2010 at 10:35 PM, John Bokma <j...@castleamber.com> wrote:
<snip> >>>> Might as well spare yourself the trouble and install linux or *bsd. It's >>>> probably easier. >>> >>> Ah, yeah, and then run all those Windows applications one requires on >>> Wine... >> >> If you're bound to a platform, use it. My advice is just to get bound to >> a platform that does what you need it to do, and in my experience it's >> quite a bit easier to teach linux to do what you wanted windows to do >> than the other way around. > > I've used several operating systems over many years and each OS has its > own issues. I am currently using mostly Linux and it's far from the > flawless OS some people seem to think it is. While it's true that some > things are easier on OS A than on OS B changing your operating system > because one (minor) thing "doesn't work" is often not an option. Sure, linux has its flaws- but it does include a working shell OOTB, which is what raised this question in the first place. > On top of that, I don't think it's that hard to make a small program > that one associates with .py files which checks the first line and feeds > the .py to the correct version of Python based on the information in the > aformentioned first line. I could spend my time reinventing all kinds of wheels. I'm just not sure why I'd want to. > Another option (instead of installing a better shell) might be to make > several VMs, each with their own Python version. Run subversion (or any > other version control system) on your host, and you can test whatever > you want. Is this seriously your solution? Can you see why I would rather have a working shell than have to automate test suites across a half dozen VMs? > There are plenty of people who are very happy with coding under an MS > OS. I now and then miss those days :-). Ok, and for those people things like cygwin exist. My point is just that it is frequently easier to do an actual linux install. Geremy Condra -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
