Time to Kill the ‘Legacy’ Label Once and For All—Here are Some Better Terms for IBM Z and IBM i

Jen Nelson, CEO of IZZI Software, laments the harms caused by IT ignorance and suggests alternatives to the misnomer that has plagued IBM i and IBM Z

Last year, a major bank in the UK suffered an IT outage that lasted nearly 48 hours, leaving customers unable to access their money. All transactions simply went silent. No official cause was given, but one reporter covering the story used an old quote from a former executive to paint a picture of an aging, outdated infrastructure based on the mainframe. He even attempted to shame the bank for still relying on mainframe technology and COBOL-based programs. Among other adjectives, such as “archaic,” he specifically called COBOL programmers “dinosaurs.”

Because I know the value this platform provides first-hand, I ignored this “reporter’s” uneducated bias, but this ignorance in the wrong hands damages broader perception with a trickle effect that you might not feel right away.

Why ‘Legacy’ Hurts So Much

We’ve already seen universities remove mainframe-relevant courses from their computer science curricula. This directly impacts the talent pool we need to keep these systems healthy. And by using negative words to describe a critical development language like COBOL, it compounds the difficulty of convincing great software engineers to cross-skill onto the mainframe platform.

Lastly, it distorts the policy conversation. Articles like this one shape how decision-makers think about modernization. If the narrative is always “mainframe bad, cloud good,” it crowds out educated understanding on just how much innovation has gone into making this platform so stable, scalable and amazing.

So let’s talk about the word “legacy.” It’s become so overused when referring to the IBM Z or IBM i platforms that we’ve become numb to it. I recognize that we as a community have been trying to kick that word out of our vocabulary for at least a couple of decades now. But unfortunately, there hasn’t been a good phrase to replace it. I’ve heard “heritage” used recently, but that’s just as bad. Now is the time for us to come together and commit to not using the word “legacy.”

That’s easier said and done, because once a phrase gets stuck in people’s heads, it’s very difficult to dislodge. For example, no one remembers that the victims of the Jonestown massacre actually drank Flavor Aid, not Kool-Aid. But we still use the phrase, “Don’t drink the Kool-Aid.”

Alternatives to ‘Legacy’

So what are some alternative descriptors that more accurately capture the essence and continued relevance of these platforms?

‘Proven’

Let’s start with the term “proven platforms.” IBM Z and IBM i have demonstrated their reliability and effectiveness over decades, servicing critical operations across industries. Far from being antiquated, they are continually updated with modern capabilities.

IBM Z, for example, incorporates advanced features like on-chip AI acceleration and integrated cryptography, which ensure security and performance in today’s demanding environments. By calling these systems “proven,” we acknowledge their long-standing success and ongoing evolution in meeting contemporary technological challenges.

‘Foundational’

Similarly to “proven,” the descriptor “foundational platforms” highlights the essential role these systems play in the IT infrastructure of many organizations. Often, the operations of entire industries hinge on the stability and scalability of IBM Z and IBM i.

These platforms handle vast quantities of financial transactions and data processing tasks that are foundational to their sectors. Their architectural robustness and ability to integrate seamlessly with modern technologies make them indispensable pillars in the digital ecosystem.

‘Mission-Critical’

Another fitting term is “mission-critical platforms.” This emphasizes the criticality of IBM Z and IBM i in maintaining operational continuity and security. The platforms’ capabilities in supporting modern programming languages and cloud-native technologies underscore their strategic importance. They are not merely surviving; they are thriving by supporting the mission-critical applications that keep businesses running smoothly.

‘Established’

The term “established platforms” also offers a fitting perspective. It underscores these systems’ enduring presence and continued relevance.

IBM i, for instance, has evolved significantly since its introduction in 1988, maintaining its core strengths while incorporating modern advances. Its seamless integration with contemporary web frameworks and support for a range of programming languages reflect its established role as a versatile and adaptable platform.

‘Enterprise-Grade’

Lastly, referring to IBM Z and IBM i as “enterprise-grade platforms” captures their suitability for large-scale, high-demand environments. These systems deliver exceptional reliability, security and performance, which are paramount for enterprises handling complex workloads. Their enterprise-grade status is further validated by IBM’s substantial investments in ongoing development and innovation.

Words Matter

The exploration into alternative descriptors is not just an exercise in semantics but a necessary shift in how we perceive and communicate the value of these platforms to others. The inspiration for this article came from reading a poor-quality article from an uneducated “journalist” whose introduction to the mainframe was likely through the biased lens of another journalist using the same language.

So can we blame him? By reframing our language, we can dismantle the negative bias and highlight the unmatched capabilities of IBM Z and IBM i.

The words that we choose to describe technology platforms shape perceptions and decisions. Calling IBM Z and IBM i “legacy systems” undermines their significant contributions and future potential. By adopting terms like “proven,” “foundational,” “mission-critical,” “established” and “enterprise-grade,” we more accurately convey their value and importance in today’s digital world. These platforms are not relics of the past, but rather vital components of the present and future technological landscape.

---