Python 2.4 killing commercial Windows Python development ?

[kosh]

On Wednesday 13 April 2005 9:11 pm, Roger Binns wrote:
> "Terry Reedy" <tjreedy at udel.edu> wrote in message
> news:mailman.1769.1113320562.1799.python-list at python.org...
>
> > 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.