Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Guido van Rossum: Python 2 end-of-life will be on January 1st, 2020 (python.org)
91 points by bakery2k on Mar 13, 2018 | hide | past | web | favorite | 30 comments



I note RHEL 7.x still contains Python 2 as the default, with Python 3 available from EPEL. But you can't remove Python 2 since just about everything in the system (including the package manager) depends on the Python 2.

RHEL7 is not due to be EOL until 2024, so Redhat (and others) will be holding the baby for a long time after 2020.


The end of "full support" for RHEL 7 is "~Q4 of 2019".

After that, there's "Maintenance Support" until 30 Jun 2024 but that only includes "errata", which are "provided at Red Hat's discretion" -- and specifically excludes "Software Enhancements" ("additions of new functionality beyond correcting defects ...").

I expect that after Python 2's EOL, we'll see very little in the way of updates for RHEL 7's Python 2 packages. There just won't be that much for them to do.


It's referred to as Extended Update Support (EUS). Of course nobody is expecting any enhancements beyond 2019 but for long-lived critical infrastructure projects (eg. mine) any critical security fixes will be required - for my project in particular at least until 2022.


The 'wall of superpowers' looks much better than last time I looked. Almost all done!

https://python3wos.appspot.com/


Doesn't httplib2 support python3? Out of 200, 8 are from Mozilla. Supervisor's next version will support v4(i think they are in testing). So, that will be pretty soon, i believe.


That list was a little surprising to me. Simplejson at the top, a library I’ve never used which seems to be obviated by the presence of json in the standard library (similarly argparse). Surprised to see pymongo above Flask. Also surprised to see Django having 10m more downloads than Flask.


>Simplejson at the top, a library I’ve never used which seems to be obviated by the presence of json in the standard library

json and simplejson are the same modules. It's just that json is based on an older version of simplejson, since the latter is not tied to the Python release cycles, and updates faster.

Simplejson also works with older pythons that didn't have json built-in (2.4 etc).

People using it is not about needing a JSON because there isn't one in the standard library, it's because it was faster than it. 2 times faster loading, and somewhat faster dumping (depending on json and simplejson version).

>* Also surprised to see Django having 10m more downloads than Flask.*

Django is much older and more established. When Flask was still a new thing, Django had several versions out and people using it.


Does having the package available for 3.x facilitate code migration? Would the references to the builtin in 3.x require other code mods (or just the import statement?)


Not very familiar (mostly using 2.7 atm), but I think simplejson should be a drop-in replacement to the built-in, and as such shouldn't affect code migration.


but Django is so integrated...


Time for Python 4.


As a Python2 holdout, I'm glad they extended the EOL -- and I'm actually glad I held out this long, starting some python3 stuff now and things work -- libs and tools that I'm used to in python2 seem all there in python3.


If you don’t continue to hold out, who will? And, if you move on, are we losing access to living history?


Let's maintain every version of everything ever made, forever. Won't somebody please think of the children!

But if that wasn't sarcasm, nobody's removing "access" to this historical artefact. Python 2's source code is available as long as somebody stores it. But the resources required to keep it secure are needed elsewhere. If you simply want to preserve it, talk to an archivist. The Python community has moved on.


It was sarcasm!


Please use <sarcasm>Something sarcastic</sarcasm> as appropriate ;)


What do you mean?

Python2 history I see as preserved in the cpython repo, mailing lists, etc. Python3 has enough improvements in the CPython VM to warrant upgrading at this point.


Why are you a Python 2 holdout? What are you holding out for?


Early adopters are beta testers ;)

I think until about 2014 (3.4) Python 3 just wasn't really ready. Then maybe it took another two years for library and tooling support to firm up around that. In 2016 I did start a new project, but a mix of familiarity and gevent support kept me on 2.7.

Also, until recently the runtime had no real advantage over 2.7, but there have been some incremental improvements (dict shared keys and so forth) that are a win you get in Python 3 for free basically.

Working on a new project in 3.6 now and it's looking good so far.


I wish we had a better term for this sort of event than "end of life".

It's perfectly reasonable for the team who are the primary developers of Python 2 to say they want to move on and they aren't going to release any more updates after some specific date. After all, it's not as if most of us are paying them for their hard work, appreciated though it is.

On the other hand, it's also not as if Python 2 will suddenly stop working on 1 January 2020. The interpreter on my server will still run, and so will the scripts that have been using it for many years and have no reason to change because they're still doing a useful job.

The situation with purely locally-installed software it typically quite different to the situation with software that depends on some remote service or runs on someone else's server and is accessed via a web or mobile UI, where the developers can literally just turn it off and users immediately lose the ability to run some or all of it. I think we should be more careful about making this distinction.


> no reason to change because they're still doing a useful job

Sure, but keeping it compatible with your OS —when it receives updates— is on you. Backporting security patches from Python 3, 4, 5 etc are on you.

I'll grant you, if you're running an air-gapped machine with no keyboard, ports or basically any external IO, you probably needn't worry too much about security. But that would put you in 0.0000000001% of deployments.

Everybody else should treat unmaintained Python 2 interpreters as dangerous zombies that need putting out of their misery. They're potentially vulnerable to whoknowswhat and past 2020 CPython isn't getting any fixes. If there's any vector into your system, it's a big fat target, and if vulnerable, a gateway into the rest the system/network/etc.

Python 2 is on life support. They're pulling the plug on 2020-01-01. You can choose to keep a zombie lurching around or you can give it a good death.


This is exactly the kind of overstatement I am challenging here.

Python is a programming language. The Python 2 interpreter has been around for a long time. We're not talking about some brand new, Internet-facing server software here. The odds of any sort of critical security issue in the Python 2 interpreter itself are very small, and for anything in the associated libraries there are plenty of other options if they should ever become necessary.

This meme that any software that has moved beyond its original publisher's chosen end date for support is suddenly a threat to all human existence really needs to die. Aside from being obviously untrue in cases where the software is open source and available to the wider community to fix or update independently, security is all about managing risk. If you're going to consider this a "dangerous zombie", I hope you also aren't waiting up to a month for your OS developer to release their next bundle of security issues and then spending further days evaluating them in a lab before deploying them, and I that you have snapshot-based filesystems with offsite backups taken every few minutes on all your machines in case some idiot on your network brings ransomware in on a USB stick without realising. Those surely reflect far higher risks than continuing to automate with useful, tried-and-tested Python 2 scripts the same way you have been for the past decade or so.


Is it an overstatement? Python is handling every bit of IO in your application. You're at the mercy of the implementation to handle it safely.

You're talking about the odds as if nothing has ever been found wrong in the stock CPython interpreter. It's certainly low traffic compared to something like a browser, but there's plenty of bad stuff[1]. That suggests it's pretty likely there will be more after the 2020 deadline, they just won't get a fix.

I'm also not sure why you're slinging around IT practice (a month is extraordinary, IMO, but CI testing updates is industry standard around here). What's wrong with good backups?

[1]: https://www.cvedetails.com/product/18230/


Python is handling every bit of IO in your application. You're at the mercy of the implementation to handle it safely.

Sure, but that's true of any programming you ever do in any language.

It's certainly low traffic compared to something like a browser, but there's plenty of bad stuff[1].

Would any of those vulnerabilities be a concern if you're using Python for local scripting and automation needs or the like, though?

Obviously if you're running untrusted code or processing data from external and potentially hostile sources then you may have a different risk assessment, but Python is used for far more than just things like writing the back ends for web apps.

I'm also not sure why you're slinging around IT practice (a month is extraordinary, IMO, but CI testing updates is industry standard around here). What's wrong with good backups?

My point was that many organisations already defer installing updates in far more vulnerable areas, such as their Windows machines, for up to a month (because Microsoft chooses to bundle them into monthly patch releases barring the occasional very serious exception) and then typically larger organisations will test out each update in a lab before deploying it more widely, causing further delay. In the meantime, that's a month or more that every machine on the network is potentially vulnerable to whatever exploits might be out there that the patch will eventually prevent. This is standard practice in Windows-based environments, and yet the risk involved is surely far higher than anyone exploiting the Python executable you've kept installed because you have a decade of useful Python 2 scripts around and don't feel like rewriting them all because someone declared Python 2 was dead.

Likewise, a large organisation getting hit by ransomware can obviously be crippling and the best defence is having back-ups as recent as possible so you can immediately restore any encrypted data. And yet, again, most organisations don't have that sort of infrastructure in place, and again, this is surely a much greater risk than having Python 2 around to run all your old Python 2 scripts.


I will cede that there are non-hostile areas where Python 2 could run forever. The same sort of environments where FORTRAN have rumbled on forever. And I agree that there are other hostile environments where some organisations have completely the wrong priorities. Desktops and networks and traffic management rarely seem to be perfect.

But on Python, I think many people underappreciate the attack surface. Just because it's not a server doesn't mean you can't feed it a malformed JPEG, or funky bytestring that causes it to blow up and spawn shells. It's a similar problem to PHP in that python includes so many batteries, it's trivial for attackers to branch out.

And much of this frustration —which leads to the strength of language— is that we bump into clients and clients' developers who proudly announce they're running a stack 4 years out of date. It's stupid the number of times I've had to explain why this is a bad idea. I've even had to demonstrate deep hacks (with permission, and remuneration) to clients who think they're immune "because Linux" or whatever. Basically they didn't want to pay their technical debt until they can see a 12yo Ukrainian (not important) kid could destroy their whole company.


The HTTP, TCP and SSL handling is all done by Python in a typical app. Ie on Windows the OpenSSL library comes bundled. There will probably be another vulnerability like Heartbled, and when that happens with Python 2 post 2020 you cannot expect a fix from Python devs. If you don't fix in a different way, you app will stay vulnerable.


If you're using Python as the back end of a web server. There are many other reasons.


Who is they though? Why can't a community grow around python2?


It can, but if it wants to release software, it'll have to use another name.


Python 2, Windows 7, Adobe Flash.

Early 2020 is shaping up to be a bloodbath.




Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: