Develop Reference

Developing Linux Kernel Modules in Python

I have been wondering if developing Linux kernel modules (drivers) with Python is possible. Is it?

Yes, it is possible:
http://www.kplugs.org/
Although not recommended in production machines, this can be really useful while prototyping your driver.

See here we have certain issues.
We have to understand why Linus Torvalds himself preferred C and Assembly language.C is the only language that won't hinder your performance on raw hardware. The Operating System was designed to use as much minimal resources as possible.
Coming to Python, we already know that it's an interpreted language. So thereby its slow as it runs on a virtual environment.
Yes you can definitely try some. Check this
Instead you can really look forward to filesystem programming and multilevel cache organization and such using python.

No; LKM on Linux have to be compiled down do a specific ELF object code format.
Of course you could make your own hack of Python that does compile down to kernel object code, but as far as I know, at this time there is no such Python publicly available.

Python portability issues

Basically, I am a Java programmer who wants to learn Python language. I want to clarify why some of python libaries are distributing using non-portable manner.
Let me explain my thoughts. If someone creates a regular library using Java he prepares 1 (one) JAR file which can be used on different platforms:
my-great-lib-1.2.4.jar
I can use this lib (the same file) on any version of Windows or Linux.
In contrast to Java, python libraries may look like this:
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win-amd64-py2.5.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win-amd64-py2.6.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win-amd64-py2.7.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win-amd64-py3.2.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win-amd64-py3.3.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win32-py2.5.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win32-py2.6.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win32-py2.7.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win32-py3.2.exe
bsdiff4-1.1.4.win32-py3.3.exe
See full list on page.
It looks very strange for me. Even 32bit and 64bit platforms require different installers. Installers! Why do I need an installer in order to use one library? Moreover, outlined installers are only for Windows. Each of them is bind to particular python version. Where is portability?
Could anyone explain a necessity of 10 different files above?

In general, Python libraries are portable across platforms. Problems appear between different major Python versions (3 introduced some big changes from 2, but 2.7 is backwards compatible with 2.6) or when you use C code for optimizing CPU intensive code. On Linux, compiling it yourself is not a problem, when you call pip install package, it will do it for you. The problem is on Windows, where it is much more difficult to compile a C program, especially because not everybody has a compiler. So, for Windows, packages that need something in C, you usually get an installer.
Also, installers are used because they set up everything nicely, look in the registry for the appropriate place to put everything, offer a standard way to uninstall them (the ones from Chrisopther Goelke's site can be removed using Add/Remove programs in Control Panel) and because that's the standard on Windows: most of the programs on Windows are installed via an exe, because it doesn't have a standard and widespread package manager.
All these libraries are then portable: you can use them from any platform, but installing them is what differs.

There are many complications. In Java where your code and then byte-code is interpreted by JVM, the inherent computer architecture do not play lot of role as long as your code is interpreted well by JVM. In fact, that is one of the primary reason Java got so popular because your code should only worry about rightly compiled by JVM.
However, in Python situation is different. I am trying to summarize some of the reason which I think is important in following lines:
The language itself is evolving (although it is long in the scenario if you think!) and changes are happening inside the language. New features are added and sometime, even some remodeling of language is done ( Python 2.x to Python 3.x)
Python relies heavily on its C extensions and so does the applications written in Python. If you write a python program and have some CPU intensive code, you can choose to write it in C. This also adds in the necessity of creating number of libraries for various distribution.

For one python versions jump around. In python 3, the syntax of some builtins completely changed. For example:
raw_input()
changed to:
input()
also, a lot of the standard library has changed even in the alpha of 3.4. As for the 32/64 bit question, I cannot fully answer. I know that certain platforms have trouble when trying to run 32/64, and that may be the point there.

Python's freeze.py doesn't install on Windows

I have been looking for the freeze.py utility which is supposed to come bundled with Python 3 in a Python 3.3 Windows install (albeit with distribute and pip installed) and haven't found it. The utility can be downloaded directly out of the Python svn repository here, but I'm wondering: does freeze come with a standard Windows Python 3 install?

It looks like Windows binary installations of Python don't come with the freeze tool. And there's apparently a good reason for this. According to the freeze README in the source tree:
Under Windows 95 or NT, you must use the -p option and point it to the top of the Python source tree.
If you read the whole section, it comes down to this: On Windows, freeze only works if you've built Python from source, and have the resulting tree sitting around to be used for freezing. So, there's no good reason to give you freeze in binary installations.
Meanwhile, I probably should have asked this in the first place, but… are you sure you want freeze in the first place?
The freeze utility is very out of date (you might have guessed that from the README talking about requiring VC++ 5.0, Windows 95 or NT 4.0, etc.). It also never worked that well on Windows (as you can tell from the documentation describing it as a utility "… to compile executables for Unix systems"). And there's just a lot of things it can't handle, or handles badly. At this point should probably be considered more as example code than as a useful tool.
There are a number of third-party alternatives out there: cx_freeze, py2exe, PyInstaller, etc. If you search PyPI for "freeze" (and other terms that seem reasonable), you will find a bunch of these alternatives. If your goal is to create a standalone executable out of your Python script (which, btw, freeze can never do on Windows anyway), experiment with a few of these and pick the one you like best.
If your goal is something different, the right tool will be different—you might be better off using venv or just zipping up a user site-packages directory or creating a local PyPI server.
In the comments, you said:
What I was actually looking for is a tool to convert Python code to C code. Apparently, that's impossible.
It's not impossible, it's just not what freeze (or its successors/competitors) does. Cython compiles almost a strict superset of Python to C code, although it's C code that uses Python runtime objects (except where you explicitly statically declare variables and functions with C types). If C++ is an acceptable alternative to C, Shed Skin compiles a restricted subset of Python 2.6 (using native C++ objects, and using type inference so you don't have to statically declare your types).
The question is why you want to compile Python code to C.
If you're looking to optimize some slow code, Cython is great at speeding up small pieces of bottleneck code. It takes a bit of effort (deciding what to move to Cython, what static type declarations to put in, etc.), but the curve of payoff to effort is pretty solid. Shed Skin takes a lot less effort—if it works, it just speeds up everything, automatically—but it also means you can't write a lot of idiomatic Python code in the first place. But really, before looking at either, you should consider PyPy, a complete implementation of Python 2.7.3 (and hopefully 3.3 soon) in a JIT-compiling interpreter, that often offers similar speedups, with pretty much no tradeoffs at all. Or, alternatively, you may just need to rewrite slow code to take advantage of already-optimized libraries (numpy instead of mapping over lists, itertools instead of explicit loops, lxml instead of html.parse, …).
If you're looking to write Python code that can interact directly with C code, without all the headaches of ctypes (or manually building Python bindings), Cython scores again. Cython code can effectively natively call both Python code and C code, and the compiler makes it all work like magic.
If you're looking to get C code that you can read, maintain, and improve on… there, you're out of luck. And this one may actually be impossible. Idiomatic Python code is just so different from idiomatic C code that it's hard to imagine how you could translate one into the other.
If you're wondering what the underlying problem is:
As far as I can tell, freeze makes a lot of assumptions about how things are laid out. It should be enough to have any Python installation that can build C extension modules and embedding apps, but it's not, because freeze goes under the covers and expects that building to work in specific ways. A standard binary installation on almost every *nix platform ends up looking like what freeze expects,* but a standard binary installation on Windows looks completely different.
It's not impossible to hack things up using Windows symlinks (at least if you have Vista or later and a drive with a modern version of NTFS) to get everything organized the way freeze expects (I found a blog where someone did that with 2.7.1…), but really, I don't think it's worth trying. It will be a lot of work (especially if you're just learning this stuff), and there's no guarantee you won't immediately run into another problem.
* This isn't actually true. On a Mac, both Apple's pre-installed Python and the binary installers at python.org actually give you the files organized as a Mac framework—but they provide a bunch of symlinks that simulate the traditional layout, which is good enough. On most linux distros, and many other platforms, the binary python package doesn't include any of the development files at all—but once you install an add-on binary package named something like python-devel, then you've got the right layout. Anyway, none of this matters to you, because if you wanted to learn about dpkg dependencies or framework builds you wouldn't be using Windows, right?

NHibernate and python

We have an existing C# project based on NHibernate and WPF. I am asked to convert it to Linux and to consider other implementation like Python. But for some reason, they like NHibernate a lot and want to keep it.
Do you know if it's possible to keep the NHibernate stuff and make it work with Python ? I am under the impression that NHibernate is glue code between C# and the DB, so can not be exported to other languages.
Alternative question: can somebody recommend a good python compatible replacement of NHibernate ? The backend DB is Oracle something.

NHibernate is not specific to C#, but it is specific to .NET.
IronPython is a .NET language from which you could use NHibernate.
.NET and NHibernate can run on Linux through Mono. I'm not sure how good Mono's support is for WPF.
I'm not sure if IronPython runs on Linux, but that would seem to be the closest thing to what you are looking for.
There is a Java version of NHibernate (said tongue in cheek) called Hibernate and there are integration points between Java and Python where Linux is very much supported.
I know the Python community has its own ORMs, but as far as I'm aware, those options are not as mature and feature rich as Hibernate/NHibernate.
I would imagine that almost all of the options available to you would support Oracle.

What about running your project under Mono on Linux? Mono seems to support NHibernate, which means you may be able to get away with out rewriting large chunks of your application.
Also, if you really wanted to get Python in on the action, you could use IronPython along with Mono.

SQLAlchemy is the most powerful ORM in Python so far.

Check out Django. They have a nice ORM and I believe it has tools to attempt a reverse-engineer from the DB schema.

Has anyone used SciPy with IronPython?

I've been able to use the standard Python modules from IronPython, but I haven't gotten SciPy to work yet. Has anyone been able to use SciPy from IronPython? What did you have to do to make it work?
Update: See Numerical computing in IronPython with Ironclad
Update: Microsoft is partnering with Enthought to make SciPy for .NET.

Some of my workmates are working on Ironclad, a project that will make extension modules for CPython work in IronPython. It's still in development, but parts of numpy, scipy and some other modules already work. You should try it out to see whether the parts of scipy you need are supported.
It's an open-source project, so if you're interested you could even help. In any case, some feedback about what you're trying to do and what parts we should look at next is helpful too.

Anything with components written in C (for example NumPy, which is a component of SciPy) will not work on IronPython as the external language interface works differently. Any C language component will probably not work unless it has been explicitly ported to work with IronPython.
You might have to dig into the individual modules and check to see which ones work or are pure python and find out which if any of the C-based ones have been ported yet.