Talk:Legacy system

Availability versus Reliability

Re: The phrase, "Extremely high AVAILABILITY." Should this not read, "Extremely high RELIABILITY?"

No, legacy systems aren't particularly reliable; components fail in them all the time. But if we're speaking of mainframe computers, they often contain massive amounts of redundancy so even in the face of a hard failure of some component or other, the system as a whole continues to be "available" for use. For example, they often contain N+1 (or better) power supplies so that one power supply can totally fail and the system keeps processing using the other "N" supplies. Within the CPU, the latest Z/OS processor chips contain two cores that operate in lock-step, executing the exact same instruction stream; additional logic compares the results between the two processors. If a mismatch is detected, the dilemma is kicked out to a service processor that decides which core got it right and resumes execution as if nothing had gone wrong. If a core continues to fail, the service processor masks it out and operation continues on just the one core. A clear failure has occurred and a service tech must eventually fix the system, but meanwhile, it's still fully available for use.

Atlant 00:20, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Legacy systems - meaning code, operating system, software and hardware, are both extremely reliable and highly available. Generally speaking very stable after 30 or 40 years of refinement (the reason why they are still with us after that length of time), 'bugs' and down time are rarity, other than unusual data exceptions, and occasional hardware issues any technology will encounter after normal usage.

And, as for legacy code included in legacy system as terminology, you cannot have one without the other.

~Deborah~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by DeborahAH (talk • contribs) 21:52, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Legacy system

One of the references points to a legacy system failing, instead of a new system failing. It should be replaced.

Yuhong Bao

Visual Basic References

Does anyone think that the references in the article to Visual Basic seem a little biased and bitter? I think VB has had it's name bashed by "real" programmers for years, but I am not sure that belongs in wiki. Just IMO.

Mfergason 21:28, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, bashing VB is a religious requirement for some people Pendragon39 01:00, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Very bad style

Yes. All the mentioned shortcomings are evident. A more thoroughly biased, ill-informed, and incompetently written article is hard to find. Ideally, this deserves a full rewrite by an expert, for a change.

Proposed merge of legacy code with legacy system

• Oppose merge; the two terms may have a hardware/software distinction. Robert K S 15:07, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Oppose merger as legacy system can also refer to intelligent control systems,fire alarm systems,security systems etc. all of them hardware dependant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.15.254.6 (talk) 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose merge; I agree with Robert. The notion of a legacy system is an operational system concern. Legacy systems may be seen in a positive or negative light, but the implications for sustain-engineering are primarily around both failure scenarios and maintenance processes. The notion of legacy code is a software maintenance concern, and the implications for maintenance are primarily around the readability, extensibility, and adaptability of the code base, and the processes needed to refactor / rewrite the software as business needs change. --Nickmalik 17:32, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

awful article

This is an editorial, not an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.30.252 (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The term "legacy system" was coined by salesmen trying to sell newer technologies that were presumably more "up-to-date." but on the other hand they could hardly tell an executive that his systems were "obsolete," so the term is slanted from the start. I made a couple of minor changes, but the article *is* biased. The "alternate view" should be incorporated into the body of the article to attempt to arrive at a neutral tone over all. Peter Flass (talk) 23:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Don't remove the 'alternate view'

I hate to start an edit war, but a previous editor made a huge change to the article with no discussion: he or she removed the "alternate view" section with a note stating that it is "awful." Perhaps that editor disagrees with the inclusion of this information, but removing it clearly makes the article one-sided and editorial in nature. I suggest a complete rewrite of the article with an attempt to keep it balanced. The term 'Legacy System' has a perjorative connotation, and it is entirely fair for the article to attempt to provide a balanced, non-perjorative, discussion. The entire article is awful. But removing that section simply makes it an awful-but-one-sided article. I do not find that to be better.

Please rewrite or discuss. --Nickmalik (talk) 18:32, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Nothing in the title says this is computers only

The term "legacy system" applies to non-computer technology. Some editor doesn't like this being mentioned, but there is nothing about this article that indicates this article is to apply to computers only. Now if the title looked like this then you might have some justification:

Article: Legacy system (computer technology)

Since there is currently only this article, its scope must necessarily cover all applications of the term unless a separate page is created. There doesn't seem to be enough of a need to create a specific computer-only page for the term's usage.

DMahalko (talk) 17:16, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Since when is legacy a buzzword that started in the 1990s? I have been a software engineer in the USA since the early 80s and we were using the term "legacy" back then. This article must have been written by a non-native speaker because the English usage is terrible and some of the references used do not appear to be credible - or at the very least, not peer-reviewed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.238.86.37 (talk) 05:21, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Restructured

I took a pass at restructuring the article. I would like another editor to swing through and give it a fresh set of eyes. A section had been added on a well researched NASA article and I decided to leave it in, but with some simplifying of the language for less technical or scholastic readers. I also moved the overabundance of information from the LEDE to the Overview, where it makes the overview more balanced, but a little clumsy.

At this point, the "alternative view" section largely duplicates information in the overview. I may return to integrate the two. I invite any other editor to do the same. Nickmalik (talk) 17:59, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Asset vs. Liability

The first sentence of the article is incorrect in implying "old" is "outdated". Many very old systems are still providing good and useful service (are these "Legacy systems"?), while many very new systems are already reaching their sell by date (I am sure that these are indeed "Legacy systems").

I think the article could usefully be re-structured to use two primary sections that define Legacy systems both as an "Asset" (the alternative view is a good start to this) as well as a "Liability" the pejorative perspective that I think still dominates this page. Nickobar (talk) 11:25, 4 June 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nickobar (talk • contribs) 10:16, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legacy system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.mousesecurity.com/?p=220

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Legacy system. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120323165836/http://www.mousesecurity.com/?p=220 to http://www.mousesecurity.com/?p=220

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)

loss of knowledge

Shouldn't this article discus the loss of knowledge about a system over time? Employees will not only forget details about the system, the requirements, the design decisions, and the alternatives considered, but also move to another position, or even leave the organization / company, either planned [retirement or other job], or unplanned [illness or accident - hit by a bus]. 139.63.202.202 (talk) 07:29, 31 January 2022 (UTC)