os.system is broken in several fundamental ways. We already have the subprocess module for accessing other processes, lets send os.system the same way as os.Popen.

I disagree.  Both os.popen and os.system work fine in the proper context
and are easier to use (and remember how to use) than the subprocess
module.  You don't give any examples of breakage, or whether said
breakage is platform-dependent.

I'm inclined to reject this out-of-hand.  The os.system() call is a basic call that had been around for very long time, has been widely used successfully, and has parallels in other languages.

Please elaborate on "is broken i several fundamental ways."

Note that os.popen is implemented with subprocess.  For os.system, what Raymond said: It complies with the Python habit of exposing calls as is, and its documentation already advertises subprocess.

Eric> Note that os.popen is implemented with subprocess.

That seems somewhat wrong to me.  There is a stdio popen function which
os.popen used to expose.  I thought that was the goal (thin wrapper around
many library functions, then build higher level stuff on that).

Skip

I wasn't around when that decision was made, but looking at the posixmodule.c source, system is a straightforward wrapper, but popen gets...byzantine on anything but unix.

Sorry, I'm rejecting this.  No reasons were presented that would warrant such as disruptive change.

For good or ill, a number of languages implement the same call in much the same way.  It does its job of exposing an operating system service that many people have found to be useful.