Can I ask what OSes you have been running on previously? Dave sorry for top posting phone email client
On Monday, March 1, 2010, Richard Brown <rbrown1...@gmail.com> wrote: > Dear X.org, > > I work for a large corporation which has used X Window System in its internal > systems since the 1980s. We have code going back to since the mid 80s which > has used X which are a critical part of our corporations internal > infrastructures and information systems. We have dozens of applications > written using xlib involving millions of lines of code. We have significant > investments on in house applications written with Xlib and have used at > various times, dumb terminals, then XFree86, and now X.org on the display > end. X.org is now the standard server on Linux systems which we would have > liked to use. We make extensive use of X's network transparency as we run > major server farms which run applications which are displayed over our > networks to terminals throughout our office complex. > > Recently, however, we have been shocked and dismayed at what we consider > extremely poor design decisions made by X.org which show indifference to > backwards compatibility and the needs of many users. > > We have always depended on the high degree of backwards compatibility that X > provides, as we have applications directly tied to xlib and to a number of > extensions and as well clients which run on older server systems using older > versions of X connecting to new and more recent Linux X servers. > > Our applications make extensive use of a large number of X extensions, these > include, but are not limited to, MIT-Sundry-Nonstandard (many of our oldest > programs from the early days use this) ,TOG-CUP, Xtrap, Xfree86-Misc, XEvIE, > EVI, PEX, (for many of our 3D modelling and CAD applications), Appgroup, > Xprint (many of our apps use this to print out forms, documents and > schematics), and Ximage (we use this heavily to display images). Xlib is very > much intergrated into all of our programs and we make extensive use of every > single feature in xlib. and of every extension. I do not believe that there > is an extension anywhere or any feature of xlib that we have not utilised in > some way. > > To our much dismay we have recently found after attempting to install new > Linux boxes that these extensions no longer appear to be available. This has > caused most of our internal applications to blow up and to be completely > ruined and unusable in the process. Dozens of applications have now blown up > and are not able to be used, involving millions of lines of code. Thousands > of dollars already invested in upgrade to new Linux systems appears to be > completely useless now, as none of our applications can be used on these new > systems. > > This has caused great harm to our company and a loss of vast investments we > have made of millions of lines of code written over a period of over 22 > years, heavily interlinked with these X extensions and dependent on them have > been rendered completely non functional due to X.org's bad design decisions. > > It is well past time that your organisation make backwards compatibility with > core X11 and all extensions to it a primary principle of your organisation. > To many have invested too much money into developing software to utilise > these extensions than to have them mindlessly removed and thus blowing up > dozens of our internal applications. > > We have decided that we will probably move to an entirely Win32 platform > instead of investing hundreds of thousands of dollars into an extensive > rewriting of our existing X applications, as it seems like, from what we have > already seen, it no longer seems as though we can count on this platform to > provide the backwards compatibility we need. We have been talking to > Microsoft extensively about this issue and they have indeed provided us with > huge resources and have iron clad commitments to maintaining compatibility > with their older interfaces, so we can rest assured that with them that code > we write today will still work years and years from now. > > It is very sad that it has come to this, and that X no longer seems to be > taking the need for backwards compatibility seriously. Backwards > compatibility is ESSENTIAL! We used to find X the perfect platform, but it > seems those days are gone. > > Needless to say we have been burned badly by X.org and its lack of concern > for its users applications and their need for backwards compatability. > > I feel very badly that a once sound platform such as X has resorted to such > shoddy, ignorant, and poorly thought out actions and behaviours. I am sure > your platform will suffer greatly as a result. > > Sincerely, > Richard Brown > _______________________________________________ > xorg mailing list > xorg@lists.freedesktop.org > http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg > _______________________________________________ xorg mailing list xorg@lists.freedesktop.org http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg
