This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
Re: The phrase, "Extremely high AVAILABILITY." Should this not read, "Extremely high RELIABILITY?"
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)
One of the references points to a legacy system failing, instead of a new system failing. It should be replaced.
Yuhong Bao
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. 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.
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)
This is an editorial, not an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.30.252 ( talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
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)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is based on material taken from the Free On-line Dictionary of Computing prior to 1 November 2008 and incorporated under the "relicensing" terms of the GFDL, version 1.3 or later. |
Re: The phrase, "Extremely high AVAILABILITY." Should this not read, "Extremely high RELIABILITY?"
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)
One of the references points to a legacy system failing, instead of a new system failing. It should be replaced.
Yuhong Bao
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. 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.
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)
This is an editorial, not an encyclopedic article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.147.30.252 ( talk) 14:48, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
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)
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:
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)
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)
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)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 12:06, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
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)