On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 10:21 PM, Ned Batchelder <n...@nedbatchelder.com> wrote: > On 9/12/17 7:40 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:34 PM, Leam Hall <leamh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>> On 09/12/2017 07:27 AM, Chris Angelico wrote: >>>> On Tue, Sep 12, 2017 at 9:20 PM, Leam Hall <leamh...@gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> Hey Chris, >>>>> >>>>> This is an area the Python community can improve on. Even I would >>>>> encourage >>>>> someone new to Python and wanting to do webdev to use Python 3. >>>>> >>>>> But if someone comes onto the list, or IRC, and says they need to stay on >>>>> Python 2 then please drop the dozens of e-mails and comments about >>>>> upgrading. Help the person learn; that makes them happier with Python and >>>>> when the time comes to switch to Python 3 they probably will. >>>> >>>> If you read back in my emails, you may find that I actually wasn't >>>> telling you to upgrade to Python 3 - just to Python 2.7, which is an >>>> easy upgrade from 2.6, and gives you the security fixes and other >>>> improvements that come from using a supported version of the language. >>>> Is it "hostile" to tell people to upgrade like that? If someone is >>>> using Python 3.2 today, I'm going to strongly recommend upgrading to >>>> the latest 3.x. If someone's using Windows 98, I'm not going to say >>>> "well, here's how to get everything working under Win98", I'm going to >>>> say "upgrade to a better OS". >>>> >>>> If that's hostile, I am not sorry to be hostile. At some point, you >>>> have to either get onto something supported, or do all the support >>>> work yourself. >>>> >>>> ChrisA >>>> >>> Hey Chris; only some folks were overtly hostile. :) >>> >>> Yet look at your answer; "upgrade". For a person working on a server there's >>> usually no economic choice to do. The OS python must stay in place and the >>> newly installed upgrade must be personally maintained, updated, and tested >>> when security patches come out. For one desktop that's not an issue. For >>> dozens, or hundreds, or thousands, its not likely to happen. >> Until you get hit by a vulnerability that was patched four years ago, >> but you didn't get the update. Now your server is down - or, worse, >> has been compromised. What's the economic cost of that? >> >> You might choose to accept that risk, but you have to at least be >> aware that you're playing with fire. Laziness is not the cheap option >> in the long run. >> >> ChrisA > > Leam has done us the favor of explaining how this list feels to people > coming into it. We should take his point of view seriously. You are > still arguing about whether software should be upgraded. Maybe it > should be, but it wasn't was the OP was asking about. > > The OP probably also isn't saving enough for retirement, and it's good > advice to save more, but it's not what they were asking about. How far > afield from the actual question is it OK to offer unsolicited advice > before it comes off as hostile? Apparently we crossed the line on this > question. >
Okay, I get the picture. Fine. You can stay on a version as old as you like - but I'm not going to help you with 2.6-specific issues. Fair? ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
