> Consider that basically the entire consumer banking and insurance industries still use mainframes. It's possible to consider that an artifact of legacy Legac

> Consider that basically the entire consumer banking and insurance industries still use mainframes. It's possible to consider that an artifact of legacy Legacy is certainly a large chunk of it. The vast majority of Fortune 500 companies have been using IBM mainframes since the 1960s or 1970s, and some were IBM "shops" before computers were invented. The cost of moving software and data from a proprietary IBM stack would be enormous, even if you could guarantee that it would work. However, the failure rate and cost overruns that appear to be endemic to very large systems development (including IBMs) make moving a risky proposition. The average CEO is focused on quarterly numbers and is unlikely to stay around for very long. If IBM mainframes were in place decades before the CEO arrived, and will likely be around for at least a decade to come, why take the risk?