Executable installer will stop being released with Python 3.16 | Hacker News Reader

Executable installer will stop being released with Python 3.16

python.org

44 pointsankitg1231 comments

The PEP for this change is here [0] and discussion of it is here [1]. Both are very long and seem to represent a huge amount of complexity, apparently to make installing Python easier for novices?

But what about those of us who listened to Rich Hickey and prefer "simple" over "easy"? With the executable installer no longer available, how do I get a copy of python.exe, python316.dll etc onto my machine so that `C:\Python316\python.exe <script>` works, without having to think about `py`, `pymanager`, Windows Store etc?

[0] https://peps.python.org/pep-0773/

[1] https://discuss.python.org/t/pep-773-a-python-installation-m...

> apparently to make installing Python easier for novices?

That seems to be the goal. But from what I've seen on forums and Discord, nothing really works for that. People are becoming less and less computer literate, including people who want to try programming. I've seen multiple instances of people not understanding the idea of running an installer once and then running the thing it installed after that. Any number of Windows users who have never seen cmd.exe (or Powershell or any other alternative) before.

And the install manager makes things worse because the `py` name conflicts with the old launcher, and of course nobody (at least, among the people actually wrestling with this stuff) actually reads pages like the one in OP. Everyone tries to learn how to do stuff from third-party sources, and old sources explaining former ways to do things never go away or get updated.

... You know, I think I finally understand why people care about `uv` being able to install Python. (I mean, I'm on Linux so I'm insulated from this anyway, but still.)

With this change of policy the foundation does not "have any control or influence over what WinGet does", one of the first class methods to install python.

https://github.com/python/pymanager/issues/287

> To install using WinGet, the command is "winget install 9NQ7512CXL7T"

Is the package name on purpose?

Yes.

winget install ICURAIDI0TFU seemed unsuitable for production.

winget install 8NDEADBEEF9N offended some.

winget install 0%U#I#$#$$## had too much hash and blow for some US states.

winget install python3.11 was too obvious.

No?

In the case of 3.11 'winget install python.python.3.11' works just fine (Community Repository).

MS decided to look at all good practices in package repository management and don't do them

Hey, it's quite an improvement over GUIDs!

The package name was Python Install Manager. 9NQ7512CXL7T was the Microsoft Store ID.

> Python install manager will automatically update within a day of an update being released

Totally something that someone in his right mind will not want to.

Also impatiently waiting for the day that the org will be blocked on the store so that the morons that decided that can be rewarded...

Also, how can you do an offline install?

For an offline install on Windows, stick the Python .exe in `uv`'s executable directory[1].

[1] https://docs.astral.sh/uv/reference/storage/#executable-dire...

WinGet and potentially MSIX have a glaring hole that should make this a no-no: programs installed that way don't work correctly via native Windows SSH server. If I remember correctly, the scenarios that fail are: installing using WinGet via SSH fails, updating using WinGet via SSH breaks the executable shims, and if Windows Store updates package, you can't use executable shims from SSH until reboot.

Ah, going back to "ActiveState Python". "ActiveState Python" is 100% compatible with community Python but is automatically built from vetted source code using a secure, SLSA-compliant build service in order to ensure its security and integrity. Secure your Python software supply chain. Contact our sales team for a monthly subscription plan.

This is pretty terrible for offline deployment. An install manager is useless for offline systems.

For folks who don’t want any hassles, there’s WinPython. It’s a portable Python distribution à la Anaconda. The “whl” flavor includes a nice wheelhouse of packages that you can use as a flat index for your venvs.

I've been using uv to manage python with great success, but yeah, now that Astral has been aquired, it sort of makes me a little bit uneasy I admit.

rip to the .exe installer - honestly overdue, since python on windows has been a rite of passage in suffering for too long, and leaning into winget/store is the right call

I genuinely don't understand what people think was wrong with the installer. I never had any problems with it.

Of course, it helps that I actually read labels next to checkboxes, and understand the "for this user"/"for all users" paradigm on Windows, and recognize that the way that Windows expects programs to be organized in Program Files is bad for %PATH% length....

They should honestly just instead back `scoop` as the default way to install Python on Windows. It's clean, sits nicely in userspace and handles CLI execution aliases elegantly.

> To install using WinGet, the command is winget install 9NQ7512CXL7T.

so ergonomic!

> winget install 9NQ7512CXL7T

LOL

So now you're forced to use Microslop Store to get Python? At the very least they could offer .msix files to download and use.

"Use of the Store app or the MSIX package is recommended."

There's a big ole green download link on there for the MSIX lol.

MSIX is what ships on the store. And some devs just use it as an installer as well. By the way aren’t MSIX installed apps sandboxed?

Not a windows user so knowledge is a bit fuzzy, but I remember the one of the advantages of MSIX being that the actual installers have less system access, but not sure if the applications once installed are any different.

Yeah with MSIX, the security is better for end users, but the trade off is there's a lot less flexibility for developers (limits on custom installs, accessing registry, Custom Actions, etc.) This works out fine for most desktop apps, and MSI is still used and supported.

They don't have to be. I have a traditional non-sandboxed app with an MSIX installer. It's less flexible than MSI but it doesn't mandate a sandbox for the installed application.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com