[Alex, getting better at brevity]
Judging by languages such as C or C++, stability seems paramount; yet Java churned a lot and still managed to spread a lot too (not without a lot of help from high-$$$ marketing efforts, though).
Another example of the Logajan paradox.
True, and yet such decision makers DO want to perceive that the specific software they use IS actively supported. It's a reasonable desire indeed, as I've tried to explain quite a few times.
Yet it is close to Logajan's position.
If they perceive that choosing "Python in general" means they have to choose between an "old, not actively supported any more" version of the language, and one that breaks previously working code every six months, then that will weigh on their mind as a big minus for Python.
So it's purely a matter of spin. Because new Python releases every 6 months do not mean that code breaks every 6 months. Yet some people continue to believe this.
If they perceived they could choose a "stable but actively supported" version (the existence of an experimental one too would not worry them, I believe -- many popular languages sprout experimental ones based on them too) then that worry would be out of the way, and I'd have a better chance to get them to LOOK at the huge productivity improvements Python has in wait for them...
Maybe all we need to do is make the micro releases a bit more visible...
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)