Something I'm not sure is clear from the article is that not all legacy is bad. The definition of the word 'legacy', essentially, is "something that is handed d

Something I'm not sure is clear from the article is that not all legacy is bad. The definition of the word 'legacy', essentially, is "something that is handed down [through generations]". You can hand down good things and bad. Banks often have incredibly old systems because their products don't change. A savings account in 1940 is pretty much the same as a savings account today. They basically have no need for DevOps, because they have no need to provide fast-moving, competitive products, and silos are a natural fit in a world of sensitive financial information. So some really old systems are pretty much fine as-is, as long as the hardware can keep running, and a few over the hill programmers are on call. Another example of useful legacy is old physical infrastructure. The Frankford Avenue Bridge in Philadelphia is a 73-foot long stone bridge that's 323 years old, and carries a substantial amount of car traffic. But it's also not being maintained like it should be, and the more-than-expected wear over time is slowly eroding it. That's the bad part of legacy systems: when you know they need maintenance and they don't get it, so they rot. Modern infrastructure can suffer the same fate. Concrete bridges, wooden houses, cars... they all need maintenance. So do modern computer systems, where they need to get regular security patches. So the problem is really just a maintenance problem, and we happen to let older systems go to hell more often than we replace newer ones.