[ameliaquining]

> When you download Python from http://python.org (on Linux or macOS), what you're actually downloading is an installer that builds Python from source on your machine.

> The net effect is that on Linux and macOS, you can't "download a Python binary" from... anywhere. Other than the python-build-standalone project.

Are you sure this is right about macOS? I just had a look inside the macOS installer from python.org and there are definitely some binaries in there.

[js2]

It's definitely wrong for macOS. The python.org macOS download has been an installer package that installs Python to /Applications as long as I can remember.

(That said, I've rarely used it, preferring either the macOS/Xcode-provided Python or these self-contained Pythons which I use via uv.)

[hack1312]

It’s incorrect for Linux too, distributions build Python binaries for their repos.

[ameliaquining]

The thread does mention that:

> (The notable exception here is that Linux distros _can_ support, e.g., `apt install python3` and ship a binary, because IIUC they can rely on standardized system paths.)

Of course, there are lots of use cases where that doesn't suffice, such as, for example, if you care what Python version you're using.

[jdxcode]

i think that sentence is taken out of context a bit, the problem with those pkg binaries is that they're not portable—which the post describes

EDIT: actually no, I think charlie is wrong on that point, he said the installers compile python but that only happens with python-build-based installers like pyenv. still, the fact those binaries lack portability is the real problem.