4 ms·

Now, this is a very naive conclusion, stemming from utter lack of experience of how real world, or even real large systems work. The true value of these

Now, this is a very naive conclusion, stemming from utter lack of experience of how real world, or even real large systems work. The true value of these “old” legacy systems is in years of development, debugging, validation of how these systems work. Including statistical guarantees of them working the way they were intended to. Hardware choices are thus very much secondary and dictated by how much they serve this preservation of investment in these complex systems. Rewriting them is a huge economical undertaking, not justified at all by transitioning to some new latest vogue technology buzzword, peddled by the big tech PR.

andomggazzz662 3y ago
They also aren't exactly legacy if the performance continues to improve in such a manner that they remain impossibly far ahead of any relevant competition. That's really the part of this whole (tiring and old) conversion that irks me the most. The total lack of willingness to come up with a better definition of legacy than "not in line with the trends that work for companies mostly interested in serving media content to consumers". Legacy is a system that is still around that cannot be defended on its technical merits. Mainframes can and are constantly defended solely on their technical merits, and the "competition" doesn't appear to even want to try to compete there. It's always about moving the things that can be moved off platform, which is fine in the eyes of IBM, they'll even help you do it. That's why they offer much lower cost on zIIPs, zAAPs, IFLs, etc in comparison to general purpose processors running native workloads.