Eliminating upgrade risk

[John Roth]

"Tim Peters" <tim.one at home.com> wrote in message
news:mailman.996105586.6334.python-list at python.org...
> [John Roth]
> > After enduring the PEP 238 threads for far too long, as well as other
> > threads, I've come to the conclusion that Python is simply too unstable
> > for real use.
>
> Hmm.  That suggests to me you haven't really used it.

I'm currently writing a major application.


> > Now, I've got a slightly different background here. Much of my
> > professional life was in IBM mainframe shops,
>
> Did IBM invite you to their internal bitch sessions?  This is Open Source,
> John:  it's *all* out in plain view.  Heck, I'm the closest thing Guido
has
> to a PR department <yikes!>, and PEP 238 in particular is talking about
> something that may change in 2 years.

I've attended Guide, and occasionally Share, for close to a decade. That's
an invitation only (users of IBM computers only) session that goes way
back. Yes, I do know exactly what I'm talking about here. Release to
release compatibility is one of IBM's selling points at the executive
management level.
>
> > where installing a new version of the operating system, major utilities
> > and language processors was essentially **guaranteed** not to break
> > running applications.
>
> I have no idea what "essentially **guaranteed**" means.  Was this a clause
> in a legally binding contract?  Or a hyperbolic way of saying you usually
> didn't have much trouble?  If it was legally binding, how much would you
pay
> to get the same kind of clause in a Python contract?  The community's
> aggregate commitment to that cause so far is $0.00 <wink>.

See the previous comment about "legally binding." Those promises were made
as conditions of sale. Consult your lawyer about ramifications.

> > I can remember numerous upgrades where I had to do absolutely
> > nothing on the applications side.
> > ...
>
> Believe it or not, most Python upgrades are like that too -- although we
> don't currently charge you Big Bux for the opportunity to be locked to IBM
> iron, I'm sure we could set a price for that too <wink>.
>
> an-ibm-mainframe-shop-this-ain't-ly y'rs  - tim

I see you've totally missed the point, Tim. The watchword in large,
successful
sites is management of risk. Lots of people like to sneer at IBM, but they
got where they are by presenting a low-risk alternative. Some people like to
live on the edge, some don't.

John Roth
>
>
>