This is true sometimes. Other times it is used because fixing the problem exposes far larger systematic flaws that relied on the bug, changing a simple fix into

This is true sometimes. Other times it is used because fixing the problem exposes far larger systematic flaws that relied on the bug, changing a simple fix into a massive refactoring project. I think the position you put forward however is often a mask for fear. People don't like change, particularly when they don't understand what is going on already. It is a sunk-cost fallacy. They invested a bunch of effort in learning the old way, which they didn't fully understand, but apparently it worked, so the accepted it. Now a new way comes along, claiming to be better, but once again, they don't understand it fully, so they just see it as an attack on the way they had been doing stuff -- which in a lot of people's minds translates to an attack on them. When this happens they start justifying "It was fine the old way, I don't see why they had to change it.". Those with some foresight then start saying "if it ain't broken don't fix it" when a change is coming down the pipe. This causes people who can see the benefit of the change to write articles like the one we're commenting on.