From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

How do you restart a Python script from WITHIN the
script ? Try :

os.execv(sys.executable, ['python3'] + [sys.argv[0]])

The syntax has to be exact.

This kills the running script and restarts it, all
neat and clean. My use was a script that did a lot
of video and network stuff - sometimes perhaps a
bit unclean. Every so often something, esp the
networking, may start to get balky. Keep track
of fails, and, if enough ....

Next little thing ... have rather large numbers
of lines inside 'try/except's. But WHERE was the
exact cause of the exception. Actually had to
search around a bit to find something that would
report both the error AND the line number :

exc_type, exc_obj, exc_tb = sys.exc_info()

The 'tb' reports the exact line number ... kind of
like what you'd see if running the script from
a terminal without 'try' protection. 'obj' is a
fairly plaintext note of the exact error like
'divison by zero'. These things can be put into
a log file. So, you can have your 'try' protection
AND see exactly what/where the screw-up was.

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

But not as fast as 'C'.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.
--
“Some people like to travel by train because it combines the slowness of
a car with the cramped public exposure of 
an airplane.”

Dennis Miller


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/19/26 06:00, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I do a little FORTRAN from time to time.

LOVE Pascal, use it often.

BASIC ... there are several flavors for Linux.
Once it became 'structurable' it really wasn't
all that bad.

'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind
of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot
of work with strings is required, well ....

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 11:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

Of course it can produce stand-alone programs.

<https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? <https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/19/26 22:04, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 11:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

'Interpreted' can be very FLEXIBLE - and easier
to debug.

And Python has been, and will further be, improved
to increase speed. With current CPUs it's now 'fast
enough' for a vast number of purposes already. It
is also 'understandable enough' - while 'C' tends
to be cryptic to most.

Oh, there are compilers ... DO use the op to include
all the libraries though, otherwise it won't be portable.

I *used* BASIC for relatively large apps, DO use Pascal
rather frequently. Python is great for a lot of things,
or as a quick way to work out protos to eventually be
translated to 'C' or Pascal.

There aren't many computer langs I'm keen to diss. Most
had, and can still have, their place in the Great Scheme.
I just downloaded a COBOL IDE ... gonna mess with that
some more. It IS very capable, just, well, 'wordy'.
Still always install a FORTH system too, though I have
not done any FORTH in a couple of decades. But ....

Some solutions just have a 'perfect feel' ... and that's
never always in the same lang.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/19/26 22:11, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

Of course it can produce stand-alone programs.

<https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? <https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python.

Yep, several approaches. Compilers and sort-of 'auto-run'
applications too (oft seen in Linux apps now).

The biggest prob with Python is the vast scope of
sub-VERSIONS. If you're gonna use a compiler you
kinda HAVE to include all the libs in YOUR current
system or it won't work widely.

Anyway, these days I most always proto in Python, get
the bugs/logic ironed out. Then if needed I re-write
in 'C' or Pascal.

Or, once in a while, in FORTRAN - just to annoy :-)

Anyway, 'cython' or 'Nutika' are adequate compilers.
However Python IS just 'C' in disguise ... one line,
one word, can run a lot of hidden 'C' code. The
'interpreted' aspect isn't THAT important anymore.
"Ease" IS still important.

Most of my post-retirement stuff uses OpenCV and 'PIL'
stuff. STILL haven't gotten OpenCV to work reliably
in 'C' alas ... always some little issue. Works very
easily in Python though ....

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that
enough to impact language choice.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-01-20, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 11:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

It can be compiled, just like some Java and Lisps will also offer
compilation.

As for stand-alone programs, what *is* a stand-alone program? Even if statically-linked, do you consider e.g. a C program stand-alone if it
requires a hosted implementation to run on?
--
Nuno Silva
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote:

'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind
  of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot
  of work with strings is required, well ....

I love strings in C.

I spent so long programming with them....
--
"The great thing about Glasgow is that if there's a nuclear attack it'll
look exactly the same afterwards."

Billy Connolly

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 20/01/2026 04:11, Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

Of course it can produce stand-alone programs.

<https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? <https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. <https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python.

And Dropbox and BitTorrent.
--
Static tumblelog generator: https://github.com/john-bokma/tumblelog/
Available as Python or Perl. Example tumblelog: https://plurrrr.com/
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Lawrence D’Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote at 03:11 this Tuesday (GMT):

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 05:04:04 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

Of course it can produce stand-alone programs.

<https://jupyter.org/> -- written in Python, didn’t you know? ><https://www.python-httpx.org/> -- written in Python. ><https://salsa.debian.org/debian/apt-listchanges/> -- written in Python.

There's also yt-dlp thats written in pure python.
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

I’ve no idea, but it doesn’t matter.
--
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote or quoted:

I’ve no idea, but it doesn’t matter.

There are tools out there for turning Python code into executables,
and maybe some folks here have already used one executable
generated this way without even realizing it was written in Python.

Normally, Python gets compiled into intermediate bytecode that
the interpreter runs, but lately there have been experiments
with JIT compilers.

BASIC

10 LET sum = 0
20 FOR i = 1 TO 100
30 LET sum = sum + i
40 NEXT i
50 PRINT sum

Python

sum(range(1,101))

BASIC

10 FOR i = 1 TO 10
20 FOR j = 1 TO 10
30 FOR k = 1 TO 10
40 PRINT i; j; k
50 NEXT k
60 NEXT j
70 NEXT i

Python

from itertools import product

for i, j, k in product(range(1, 11), repeat=3):
print(i, j, k)




--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200
Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

I mean, nothing but the kernel is truly "built-in," but it's right in
the repository in every major distro and underlies a large number of
fairly core-ish utilities (e.g. Synaptic,) so...more or less, yes?
Highly unlikely that you'd find a modern Linux environment outside of
(maybe) the embedded space where you *couldn't* run Python programs, if
it came to it.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-01-20, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

I’ve no idea, but it doesn’t matter.

I blew the dust off a bit of Python code I threw together a while ago
to get the feel of the language. It turned out that I no longer had
a Python interpreter. So I re-installed one.

Short answer to the question: No.
Slightly longer answer: Who cares, it's in the repository.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-01-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote:

'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind
  of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot
  of work with strings is required, well ....

I love strings in C.

I spent so long programming with them....

...that I've built my own personal library full of functions
that do all sorts of nifty things with strings.
--
/~\ Charlie Gibbs | Growth for the sake of
\ / <cgibbs@kltpzyxm.invalid> | growth is the ideology
X I'm really at ac.dekanfrus | of the cancer cell.
/ \ if you read it the right way. | -- Edward Abbey
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

There is this thing called a “package manager”, which automatically
pulls in any necessary dependencies (that aren’t already present) when
you try to install something. So if an executable is written in
Python, you don’t even have to know that. It gets invoked in the same
way as any other executable.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 20/01/2026 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-01-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote:

'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind
  of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot
  of work with strings is required, well ....

I love strings in C.

I spent so long programming with them....

...that I've built my own personal library full of functions
that do all sorts of nifty things with strings.

Almost. I just know how to approach using them . The c library has all
you need at the basic level
--
All political activity makes complete sense once the proposition that
all government is basically a self-legalising protection racket, is
fully understood.


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

'All' is a dangerous qualifier but any version I've installed did. They
may be different versions. Linux Mint is 3.12.3, Ubuntu 25.10 is 3.13.7,
and Fedora and Arch are both 3.14.2. You can have multiple versions
installed and manage them with uv but those are the defaults.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/20/26 05:16, Nuno Silva wrote:

On 2026-01-20, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Mon, 19 Jan 2026 11:00:43 +0000, The Natural Philosopher
<tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

It can be compiled, just like some Java and Lisps will also offer compilation.

As for stand-alone programs, what *is* a stand-alone program? Even if statically-linked, do you consider e.g. a C program stand-alone if it requires a hosted implementation to run on?

Exactly ... the 'C' program typically makes use of
a lot of OS calls. I wouldn't say it's "interpreted"
but its also not purely self-standing.

'C' for microcontrollers - think Arduino and others -
IS more 'pure' as there's no OS. However you then
have to import libs that do what Linux or Winders
OS routines would have done.

Anyway, pure speed is often NOT the prime reason for
picking one programming lang over another these days.
CPUs/mem are SO quick now ... so 'ease' or 'seems
best fit for my particular need' can become THE criteria.

A few years back I wrote a pre-threaded server in 'C',
good for high volume connections. Never used it for that
but recycled it into a client/server setup that sent
status info about other servers every 15 minutes on
demand. The 'C' version was overkill, but cheap overkill
since I already had the code. Maybe 5k transferred every
15 minutes - big whup. Out-of-spec info, send e-mail.
Send a 'gimme' cmd quickly to all the boxes, then
take in the replies as fast as they'd come.

Experimentally I also wrote a cheapo version using
Python. It was much shorter, much easier to understand
and still vastly faster than needed.

Anyway, we often invent words, terms, then those
become camps, then 'religions', then sects. If
an 'interpreted' lang is getting it done fine then
there's no reason to burn it at the stake. If a
compiled lang is required then use that. Polytheism
is perfectly good in Computerland.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/20/26 05:17, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that
enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

All I've seen ... at least a decade+ now. Used to be P2,
now P3.

I think Winders Vista I started seeing Python scripts
in amongst the system stuff, mostly for config uses.
So, inbuilt Python in operating systems goes back at
least THAT far.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/20/26 07:05, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote:

'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind
   of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot
   of work with strings is required, well ....

I love strings in C.

Whips & chains too ? :-)

I spent so long programming with them....

Oh, you CAN ... but its a hell of a lot
easier in Pascal or Python.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/20/26 15:42, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 20/01/2026 19:01, Charlie Gibbs wrote:

On 2026-01-20, The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 22:33, c186282 wrote:

'C' remains very very good ... but CAN be kind
    of clunky, depending on your needs. If a lot
    of work with strings is required, well ....

I love strings in C.

I spent so long programming with them....

...that I've built my own personal library full of functions
that do all sorts of nifty things with strings.

Almost. I just know how to approach using them . The c library has all
you need at the basic level

I, you too apparently, got into this stuff way back.
The selection of programming languages expanded rapidly
and everyone was SURE they had the Better Way. Meanwhile
I did FORTRAN, some COBOL, Pascal and 'C' when they came
along, even BASIC and masm stuff. I became a coding
polytheist. Hey, even have Python scripts that evoke
little 'C' apps and suck up the results.

Some apps just have a certain 'feel' ... and that tells
me "this would be better in 'C'" or "this would be better
for Pascal" or "this would work more easily in Python"
and so forth.

Yes, you can right the length of Route 66 on a mule, but
it's much better in a pop-top Cadillac.

I too have my little lib of handy 'C' string stuff, some
of the ideas borrowed from PICK-OS (a lot of my junk
uses multi-valued records, mostly because I *like* them).
However if the app is going to be very 'stringy' I'll
go with Pascal or Python instead.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/20/26 16:33, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

'All' is a dangerous qualifier but any version I've installed did. They
may be different versions. Linux Mint is 3.12.3, Ubuntu 25.10 is 3.13.7,
and Fedora and Arch are both 3.14.2. You can have multiple versions installed and manage them with uv but those are the defaults.

The sub-version issue IS a pain sometimes, and a
potential killer if using a Python compiler. Always
include all the Python libs if compiling. Fatter
executable, but it WILL execute most anywhere.

Anyway, I didn't even fool with Python until v3
started to solidify. Had interest, but why learn
an outgoing version ? Why learn 'B' when you can
learn 'C' ?

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 20/01/2026 22:58, c186282 wrote:

Exactly ... the 'C' program typically makes use of
  a lot of OS calls. I wouldn't say it's "interpreted"
  but its also not purely self-standing.

Only for I/O. like any language must.
--
The theory of Communism may be summed up in one sentence: Abolish all
private property.

Karl Marx


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:16:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DÿOliveiro
<ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

There is this thing called a “package manager”, which automatically
pulls in any necessary dependencies (that aren’t already present) when
you try to install something. So if an executable is written in
Python, you don’t even have to know that. It gets invoked in the same
way as any other executable.

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know.

So if I write some Python code in, say, Windows, I can just run it
under Linux without having to install anything?
--
Steve Hayes from Tshwane, South Africa
Web: http://www.khanya.org.za/stevesig.htm
Blog: http://khanya.wordpress.com
E-mail - see web page, or parse: shayes at dunelm full stop org full stop uk --- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 18:02:55 -0500, c186282 wrote:

All I've seen ... at least a decade+ now. Used to be P2,
now P3.

For a while python2 and python3 would be installed. It was extended a
couple of times but the sunset was in 2020. If you still have python2
you're on your own.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 07:55:30 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:16:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence D’Oliveiro wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python
interpreter?

There is this thing called a “package manager”, which automatically
pulls in any necessary dependencies (that aren’t already present)
when you try to install something. So if an executable is written
in Python, you don’t even have to know that. It gets invoked in the
same way as any other executable.

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know.

So if I write some Python code in, say, Windows, I can just run it
under Linux without having to install anything?

If you have the right packaging tools available under Windows, I don’t
see why not.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/21/26 00:55, Steve Hayes wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 20:16:52 -0000 (UTC), Lawrence DÿOliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 12:17:59 +0200, Steve Hayes wrote:

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

There is this thing called a “package manager”, which automatically
pulls in any necessary dependencies (that aren’t already present) when
you try to install something. So if an executable is written in
Python, you don’t even have to know that. It gets invoked in the same
way as any other executable.

Thank you. That's what I wanted to know.

So if I write some Python code in, say, Windows, I can just run it
under Linux without having to install anything?

HaHaHaHaHaHaHa .... :-)

If it's "simple" then it MIGHT work. In Linux especially
though you often need to make sure the 'import' libs are
actually loaded in. OS differences also mean little bits
may work rather differently between systems.

Mostly, something writ for Winders will work in Linux
without TOO much problem - but don't expect NO problems.
Lin and Win are 'different universes' to a degree.

I sometimes promote Lazarus/FPC ... that IS designed to
work both Win and Lin. Often the main gotcha is stupid
stuff like font names/sizes for the GUI.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 1/21/26 01:50, rbowman wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 18:02:55 -0500, c186282 wrote:

All I've seen ... at least a decade+ now. Used to be P2,
now P3.

For a while python2 and python3 would be installed. It was extended a
couple of times but the sunset was in 2020. If you still have python2
you're on your own.

Both worked ... P3 syntax is just a little different
but the main diff is in the underlying interpreter
engine - P3 is better/faster. There's TALK of a P4,
but the syntax isn't expected to change, only more
optimization of the interpreter.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Wed, 21 Jan 2026 22:47:07 -0500
c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

Mostly, something writ for Winders will work in Linux without TOO
much problem - but don't expect NO problems. Lin and Win are
'different universes' to a degree.

I sometimes promote Lazarus/FPC ... that IS designed to work both Win
and Lin. Often the main gotcha is stupid stuff like font names/sizes
for the GUI.

Don't forget "case mismatch between resource filenames on disk vs. in
the source" - see indie game developers tripping over that one all the
time. (Why so many of them hard-code filenames in the source & can't be bothered to package their resources into an archive is another matter.)

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when
it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel, nothing more.

Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/02/2026 14:50, Rich wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when >>>> it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that
enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel, nothing more.

Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.

It does however tend to be the case that nearly all come with bash, and
python because many default programs depend on them

gcc used to be part of 'build-essentials' nut I am not sure it isn't a
default part of most distros these days
--
For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and
wrong.

H.L.Mencken

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:07:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

gcc used to be part of 'build-essentials' nut I am not sure it isn't a default part of most distros these days

i think build-essential is the package for Debian derived distros. It's
one the Linux Mint machine I installed recently and the Ubuntu box. The
Fedora and Arch boxes also have gcc and I don't remember explicitly
installing it.

I do remember being disappointed by earlier distros 'Oh, you wanted to
build something? You need to install...'

clang needs to be installed.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS
almost infinitely useful these days. The look and
feel is sort of BASIC, sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular when >>>> it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it can't
produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that
enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel, nothing more.

Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.

Strictly speaking, correct.

However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The
world works with distros - and they all contain
GCC at minimum, now also Python.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/2/26 16:19, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:07:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

gcc used to be part of 'build-essentials' nut I am not sure it isn't a
default part of most distros these days

i think build-essential is the package for Debian derived distros. It's
one the Linux Mint machine I installed recently and the Ubuntu box. The Fedora and Arch boxes also have gcc and I don't remember explicitly installing it.

I do remember being disappointed by earlier distros 'Oh, you wanted to
build something? You need to install...'

clang needs to be installed.

Clang is good now, GCC is also good and 'more traditional'.

I think most package makers still just assume that they
will be compiled with GCC.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote:

On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost
infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, >>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular
when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it
can't produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>>> enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel,
nothing more.

Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other
languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.

Strictly speaking, correct.

However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with
distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python.

Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/Linux.
The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't
enthused about the one distro that might sort of work.

"The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards
any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the
Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd
distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http:// www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn what those standards are."

https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html


--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/2/26 21:58, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote:

On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost
infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, >>>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular
when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it
can't produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>>>> enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel,
nothing more.

Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other
languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.

Strictly speaking, correct.

However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with
distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python.

Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/Linux. The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't enthused about the one distro that might sort of work.

Put two people in a room and you get "politics" :-)

They will soon fight to the death about the fine
meaning of the word "is".

"The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards
any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the
Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd
distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http:// www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn what those standards are."

https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html

I didn't realize Arch was considered so evil/heretical !

Still have one machine running an Arch deriv - maybe I
should smash it with a sledgehammer before the daemons
escape and destroy the universe ?

In any case, both GCC and Clang are very good. Package
developers still assume GCC though. I've done some
mid-sized apps compiled with GCC and Clang and there's
no obvious advantage - speed, code size - with either.
If you can do it with GCC you can do it with Clang and
vice-versa.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc



On 2/2/26 18:58, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote:

On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost
infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, >>>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular
when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it
can't produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>>>> enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
consider the fancy bpf code a "language"). "Linux" is just the kernel,
nothing more.

Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other
languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.

Strictly speaking, correct.

However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with
distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python.

Hurd is not totally functional yet and the distributions that contain it are put out
so that people can try it out. Maybe coders will do something with it.

Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/Linux. The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't enthused about the one distro that might sort of work.

Well they are purists and since most distribution include firmware some of which will be proprietary code they do not recommend those.

I would not reccomend a GNU/Linux distribution which would not
run on most hardware available. That might be what we would have
with a totally free(Open Source) distribution. You might be confined to terminal use only. That would be fine for many folks who started using
Linux much earlier in life than I did but I need a Desktop Environment
as well as code that will run on most machines. The machines I learned
to do computing with are no longer built except in very expensive
editions which mostly emulate on x86 hardware the 6502, 8503.
and 680x0 cpus on which on the C=64, C=64/128, Amiga computer
used. After I learned the ins and outs of AmigaOS 1.2-3.9 I got
sick and have very little brain power left to learn new stuff.

"The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards
any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the
Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd
distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http:// www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn what those standards are."

https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html

One of the problems with totally free i.e. non-proprietary software is that Hurd needs drivers and probably cannot use Linux
drivers though
maybe a intermediate software could use them with Hurd. Mostly though
you might
find yourself confined to terminal use to hopefully call programs with
GUI to
do the work, number crunching in spreadsheets, databases text and word processing, web browsing and Usenet. They might not come because the developers may have
other ways to spend their time. A kernel is being written in Rust and
that distribution
may have similar problem.

The Freesoftware foundation is free to choose what degree of proprietary
code, i.e. firmware that they allow before they think it is intolerable
to their
elevated standards.
I only recommend what I am using...

bliss- Dell Precision 7730- PCLOS 2026.01- Linux 6.12.68 pclos1- KDE
Plasma 6.5.5
"Nearly any fool can use a GNU/Linux Computer..."
After all here I am...





--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/2/26 23:20, Bobbie Sellers wrote:

On 2/2/26 18:58, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 20:50:44 -0500, c186282 wrote:

On 2/2/26 09:50, Rich wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> wrote:

On Tue, 20 Jan 2026 08:42:08 +0000, Richard Kettlewell
<invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Steve Hayes <hayesstw@telkomsa.net> writes:

The Natural Philosopher <tnp@invalid.invalid> wrote:

On 19/01/2026 04:10, c186282 wrote:

I know some here HATE Python ... but it really IS almost
infinitely useful these days. The look and feel is sort of BASIC, >>>>>>>>> sort of FORTRAN, sort of Pascal++.
It Just Works.

I've not used any of those languages in decades, either.

I've played with Python, BASIC and Pascal.

The thing I don't understand about Python is why it is so popular >>>>>>> when it is an interpreted rather than a compiled language, so it >>>>>>> can't produce stand-alone programs.

That’s debatable, but either way, most people don’t care about that >>>>>> enough to impact language choice.

So do all versions of Linux come with a built-in Python interpreter?

No version of Linux includes any built-in languages (unless you
consider the fancy bpf code a "language").  "Linux" is just the kernel, >>>> nothing more.

Most Linux **distributions** include Python (and a whole host of other >>>> languages) in their repositories that one can install on one's system.

    Strictly speaking, correct.

    However who the fuck uses the bare kernel ? The world works with
    distros - and they all contain GCC at minimum, now also Python.

    Hurd is not totally functional yet and the distributions that contain it are put out
so that people can try it out. Maybe coders will do something with it.

Pedants will be pedantic. It's usually followed by a rant about GNU/
Linux.
The unicorn called GNU/Hurd isn't mentioned very often. The FSF isn't
enthused about the one distro that might sort of work.

    Well they are purists and since most distribution include firmware some
of which will be proprietary code they do not recommend those.

    I would not reccomend a GNU/Linux distribution which would not
run on most hardware available.  That might be what we would have
with a totally free(Open Source) distribution.  You might be confined to terminal use only.  That would be fine for many folks who started using Linux much earlier in life than I did but I need a Desktop Environment
 as well as code that will run on most machines. The machines I learned
to do computing with are no longer built except in very expensive
editions which mostly emulate on x86 hardware the 6502, 8503.
and 680x0 cpus on which on the C=64, C=64/128, Amiga computer
used.  After I learned the ins and outs of AmigaOS 1.2-3.9 I got
sick and have very little brain power left to learn new stuff.

Death By Guru-Meditation Messages ? :-)

"The Free Software Foundation can't recommend Debian GNU/Hurd or the Arch
distribution; we must suppose that they don't meet our freedom standards
any more than Debian GNU/Linux and the Arch distribution based on the
Linux kernel do. Likewise we have not evaluated other GNU/Hurd
distributions in regard to ethical criteria. Please visit http://
www.gnu.org/distros/free-system-distribution-guidelines.html to learn
what
those standards are."

https://www.gnu.org/software/hurd/hurd/running/distrib.html

        One of the problems with totally free i.e. non-proprietary software is that Hurd needs drivers and probably cannot use Linux
drivers though
maybe a intermediate software could use them with Hurd. Mostly though
you might
find yourself confined to terminal use to hopefully call programs with
GUI to
do the work, number crunching in spreadsheets, databases text and word processing, web browsing and Usenet.  They might not come because the developers may have
other ways to spend their time.  A kernel is being written in Rust and
that distribution
may have similar problem.

    The Freesoftware foundation is free to choose what degree of proprietary
code, i.e. firmware that they allow before they think it is intolerable
to their
elevated standards.
    I only recommend what I am using...

Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only
a tiny tiny few DO have that.

A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can".
All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn
how to deal with it.

Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it
WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust
or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow
you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'.

"Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-)

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

rbowman <bowman@montana.com> writes:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:07:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

gcc used to be part of 'build-essentials' nut I am not sure it isn't
a default part of most distros these days

i think build-essential is the package for Debian derived distros. It's
one the Linux Mint machine I installed recently and the Ubuntu box. The Fedora and Arch boxes also have gcc and I don't remember explicitly installing it.

Debian’s build-essential exists so that Debian source packages don’t all have to list GCC (and a few others) as a build dependency. It’s not a general-purpose way of getting a build environment (although does make a convenient starting point for that purpose).

https://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-source.html#package-relationships --
https://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 02/02/2026 21:19, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:07:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

gcc used to be part of 'build-essentials' nut I am not sure it isn't a
default part of most distros these days

i think build-essential is the package for Debian derived distros. It's
one the Linux Mint machine I installed recently and the Ubuntu box. The Fedora and Arch boxes also have gcc and I don't remember explicitly installing it.

I do remember being disappointed by earlier distros 'Oh, you wanted to
build something? You need to install...'

Well Mint for sure was never touted as a 'developers system'

clang needs to be installed.

--
"It was a lot more fun being 20 in the 70's that it is being 70 in the 20's" Joe Walsh

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/3/26 07:57, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

On 02/02/2026 21:19, rbowman wrote:

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 15:07:32 +0000, The Natural Philosopher wrote:

gcc used to be part of 'build-essentials' nut I am not sure it isn't a
default part of most distros these days

i think build-essential is the package for Debian derived distros. It's
one the Linux Mint machine I installed recently and the Ubuntu box. The
Fedora and Arch boxes also have gcc and I don't remember explicitly
installing it.

I do remember being disappointed by earlier distros 'Oh, you wanted to
build something? You need to install...'

Well Mint for sure was never touted as a 'developers system'

No, it was meant as 'relatively easy and widely
compatible' - and pretty much is so.

But that doesn't mean you can't add the usual
'developers' tools in about five minutes.

clang needs to be installed.

You can take or leave Clang. It's now very good
but not really anything so over and above GCC.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On Mon, 2 Feb 2026 22:23:36 -0500, c186282 wrote:

I didn't realize Arch was considered so evil/heretical !

I didn't either. Debian has been on Stallman's shit list since '98; q.v. Perens and Raymond.

Unfortunately Perens is a gun grabber.
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

...

Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only
a tiny tiny few DO have that.

A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can".
All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn
how to deal with it.

Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it
WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust
or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow
you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'.

"Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-)

And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years
ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed
around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the
pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules.
--
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote:

On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

...

Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only
a tiny tiny few DO have that.

A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can".
All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn
how to deal with it.

Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it
WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust
or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow
you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'.

"Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-)

And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years
ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed
around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the
pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules.

It's been a few years ... however I did download
the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around
with it some to see how it's come along and whether
it's worth it.

However my recollection was that if you can do
it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as
easily.

"Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look
into Ada, if you dare :-)

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2026-02-04, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote:

On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

...

Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only
a tiny tiny few DO have that.

A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can".
All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn
how to deal with it.

Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it
WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust
or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow
you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'.

"Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-)

And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years
ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed
around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the
pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules.

It's been a few years ... however I did download
the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around
with it some to see how it's come along and whether
it's worth it.

However my recollection was that if you can do
it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as
easily.

"Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look
into Ada, if you dare :-)

Did a bit of web searching to refresh memory. The term is
"ownership":

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html

https://luk6xff.github.io/other/safe_secure_rust_book/memory_safety/pointers.html

I didn't find exactly the wording I was looking for, but IIRC one
of the key issues is you cannot have a function that allocates
memory and returns a pointer to said allocated memory, because
that violates the rule from the first link that, "When the owner
goes out of scope, the value will be dropped." Largely, it's
that restriction that causes difficulty when some code is ported
from C to Rust. Workarounds to that restriction are required in
Rust that are not required in C.
--
Robert Riches
spamtrap42@jacob21819.net
(Yes, that is one of my email addresses.)
--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2

From Newsgroup: comp.os.linux.misc

On 2/4/26 00:14, Robert Riches wrote:

On 2026-02-04, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

On 2/3/26 23:18, Robert Riches wrote:

On 2026-02-03, c186282 <c186282@nnada.net> wrote:

...

Everybody thinks they have The Better Idea. Alas only
a tiny tiny few DO have that.

A kernel in Rust ? WHY ? Apparently "just because we can".
All the other developers are not going to suddenly learn
how to deal with it.

Linux soon reached a sort of "standard setup" ... and it
WORKS very well. NO reason to re-write everything in Rust
or COBOL or anything else. 99.99% of the world WON'T follow
you there - it all becomes just an 'academic exercise'.

"Rust" ... 'C' with an even more annoying syntax :-)

And, if I remember correctly from when I studied it a few years
ago some rather odd rules about when/how pointers can be passed
around. Sometimes, it takes a lot of gyrating to declare the
pointer in the right place to satisfy the "memory safety" rules.

It's been a few years ... however I did download
the Rust suite yesterday and will fool around
with it some to see how it's come along and whether
it's worth it.

However my recollection was that if you can do
it in Rust then you can do it with 'C' just as
easily.

"Safety" ... that always complicates things. Look
into Ada, if you dare :-)

Did a bit of web searching to refresh memory. The term is
"ownership":

https://doc.rust-lang.org/book/ch04-01-what-is-ownership.html

https://luk6xff.github.io/other/safe_secure_rust_book/memory_safety/pointers.html

I didn't find exactly the wording I was looking for, but IIRC one
of the key issues is you cannot have a function that allocates
memory and returns a pointer to said allocated memory, because
that violates the rule from the first link that, "When the owner
goes out of scope, the value will be dropped." Largely, it's
that restriction that causes difficulty when some code is ported
from C to Rust. Workarounds to that restriction are required in
Rust that are not required in C.

Being able to pass pointers back and forth is
a strong point with 'C'. In theory this COULD
be exploited by evil actors, but I can't find
any clear doc on whether it's been done to
any relevant degree. Most security probs result
from developer stupidity, not from the underlying
language and methods.

Amazing how many still allocate mem, or even
just string space or use thereof, without the
slightly newer functions that let you specify
just HOW many bytes are involved. "Buffer
overflow" is still a prime attack vector. Keep
seeing it in M$ warning notes and no doubt
there's similar idiocy in Linux/UNIX apps
as well.

K&R was damned good - most of my code still looks
like that - but it didn't anticipate state-sponsored
attacks.

As for Ada ... I wonder how many suicides/burn-outs
happen in its 'programmer community'. I did some
Ada - and my first functions were tricks to defeat
the fixed/dynamic memory 'protections' just so
ANYTHING could be accomplished.

--- Synchronet 3.21b-Linux NewsLink 1.2