← Back to team overview

kicad-developers team mailing list archive

Re: Win32 compilation for kicad scripting


On 07/23/2012 10:09 AM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> On 7/23/2012 9:25 AM, Dick Hollenbeck wrote:
>>> Hahaha, good point Dick, anyway, somehow, in Win32 is a common
>>> practice to include the python interpreter in many softwares that
>>> depend on python, at least the DLL (see point b)
>>> Anyway, my preferences are:
>>> a) Ask the users to install Python 2.7.x, and set it on system PATH as
>>> a prerequisite, if it's not satisfied during installation just give a
>>> link to: [http://www.python.org/getit/], it's just 15MB   [apt-get
>>> does that automatically in Linux]
>>> b) Bundle the whole Python exe + Python.dll + python basic set of
>>> system libraries,
>>> c) Bundle only the Python.dll + python basic set of system libraries,
>>> d) Statically link Python in kicad + provide the basic set of python
>>> system libraries [a good way of wasting system memory]
>>> --jokes--
>>> e) forcing the users install Linux would save a lot of time, yes, but,
>>> poor Win32 and Mac users ;)
>>> f) Installing Linux itself [KicadOS!!!, hahaha]
>>> I think that a is better than b,c (even though it needs more user
>>> interaction) because the user will have all the system-wide available
>>> python modules and libraries, and also kicad functionality will stay
>>> available to any other python scripts on the Win32 systems.
>>> Anyway, we might take a look to what other Win32 softwares are doing
>>> regarding this, and think.
>> Good idea.
>> Blender might be one to look at (but a couple other data points are encouraged also).
>> Blender is heavily dependent on python, and has extremely tight scripting integration.
>> Does it run on Windows?  If so, something could be learned about what are they doing for
>> the poor Windows users.
> Bundling the Python interpreter with the windows installer is probably 
> your safest bet for most users.  The other option I've seen that works 
> well for power users is to also provide Python specific builds of the 
> installer.  Take a look at what the Bazaar folks are doing at 
> http://wiki.bazaar.canonical.com/WindowsDownloads.  It's more work for 
> the developers building windows installers but it makes life a bit 
> better for your users.  I tend to error on the side of the user when it 
> comes to ease of installation.
> Don't feel too bad for those Windows users just yet.  I still do not 
> have a fully functional 3D graphics on Linux with my AMD HD7670 graphics 
> card.  The neither the open source Radeon driver or the propriety AMD 
> catalyst driver works properly.  So I'm forced to either go buy an 
> NVidia card or run GNOME3 in the fall back mode (read low resolution and 
> no 3D ).  In spite of Linus' rants about NVidia, their proprietary Linux 
> drivers have never given me any problems.  On Windows my shiny new 
> graphics card works just fine.  I really thought we were getting past 
> the whole graphics card nonsense but I guess not.  I'm glad I got that 
> off my chest.  I feel much better now :)

When I bought my last computer, I paid $35 more to have Linux pre-installed on it.  This
was a linux compatibility verification only.
After I got it, I installed my own Ubuntu on it and blew away what they had done.

My thinking was that if the computer vendor could not get a recent linux running properly
on the hardware, that my time was too valuable to even try the machine.

>> (FYI, Microsoft actually lost money this quarter for the first time in their history.  And
>> I'm down to having spent only 20 minutes running Windows in the last two years.  Average
>> of 10 minutes per year.  These are two trends that will possibly continue.)

> As much as Microsoft's lose of money made me misty eyed with joy (it 
> couldn't happen to a nicer company), they have 10s of billions of 
> dollars in cash which will take a while to burn through.  It will be 
> some before we can strike up a chorus of "Ding dong the witch is dead".
> Wayne

Microsoft is no witch.  However, their position of leadership can erode far faster then
their bank account.  Think "pied piper" or the "naked emperor".  They are no longer
*leading* the choices of developers.  Their position of developer leadership (not market
leadership) is drying up very very rapidly.

Microsoft's influence over industry wide software development practices is in a very rapid
free fall (influence outside the company).  (Even among themselves, they don't know what
to do with .NET, so how can they lead from that position.)   Again, leadership here is
influence over external software developers, in this discussion.  

That is what will eventually be relevant to this project in the upcoming handful of
years.  Not whether Microsoft still sells mice.  Or keeps getting patent revenues.


(In my many posts about Microsoft the common theme is that they haven't deserved to be in
a position of leadership, and that I would not follow an undeserving presumptive leader. 
Fortunately I do not have to.)

Follow ups