On Apr 18, 2014, at 5:08 PM, Nick Coghlan <ncoghlan@gmail.com> wrote:
On 18 April 2014 16:50, Donald Stufft <donald@stufft.io> wrote:
So I’m not really worried about a competition or anything. I’m mostly worried about confusion of users. What you’re suggestion we give to use is *two* ways to install Python packages (and 2 or 3 ways to virtualize a Python instance).
Note that one of my requirements was that "pip install foo" *must* do the right thing in conda environments (whatever we decide the "right thing" means in that context). It was buried at the end of a long email though, so it would have been easy to miss.
That means the instructions to new users can be simple and consistent - use pip commands to manage Python things, conda commands to manage other stuff. They'll likely discover in fairly short order that the conda commands also work for Python things, but it can be explained that not all environments are conda environments, and hence pip works in more situations than conda does, but at the cost of being specific to Python packages.
Cheers, Nick.
-- Nick Coghlan | ncoghlan@gmail.com | Brisbane, Australia
Thinking about that and the implications of it. Next question, where even is the code for “Anaconda”? I tried to download it from their website and it’s behind an email form, I saw a link for github issues but it’s in a dedicated “anaconda-issues” repo which doesn’t have any code associated with it. Also to be honest i’m a little uncomfortable with the idea of Python.org pushing a platform where the company that develops the platform sells Add-ons to that platform. So while Anaconda itself may be free and open source the fact that the Anaconda distribution is a gateway to a particular company’s paid add ons makes me feel a bit like a government sponsored monopoly kind of thing? I’m not using good words here to describe what I mean, but it feels kind of icky to me. ----------------- Donald Stufft PGP: 0x6E3CBCE93372DCFA // 7C6B 7C5D 5E2B 6356 A926 F04F 6E3C BCE9 3372 DCFA