Some organizations are resistant to change and that's OK, but when systems are maintained to the point that they become a historical curiosity-- that's going a

Some organizations are resistant to change and that's OK, but when systems are maintained to the point that they become a historical curiosity-- that's going a bit too far. Aside from comically high maintenance costs (which only the government and perhaps banks can afford to pay), such organizations also need to _hire_, _train_ and _retain_ staff that can actually do their jobs on these things. It simply isn't feasible to keep let alone recruit strong talent in an environment where legacy goes beyond a certain level. Yeah, good employees _ARE_ going to be concerned about their C.V.'s and that is understandable. An excessive "upgrade cycle" may, in some cases be risky, but a vastly more common problem is orgs that don't change/adapt/upgrade fast enough. That has risks and costs as well.