• halcyoncmdr@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    It’s COBOL isn’t it?

    After reading the first sentence… Yes it is. It’s not like this is a surprise. Banks are some of the worst when it comes to actually replacing outdated shit. Until it fails, and takes their entire business with it of course.

    These articles have been written for at least two decades now. This isn’t a new issue. The banks just refuse to do what’s necessary because it is expensive and they want to keep kicking the can down the road. Eventually that can is gonna fall apart, and the millions to upgrade… Will be a nothing compared to the billions they lose daily after.

    • Maddier1993@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      I don’t think the money is the problem. Because one can always do a shadow or A/B deployment.

      I bet it is to do with unreliability of migrations and the general fact that new tech is a bit jank.

      • Dyskolos@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        ·
        2 months ago

        Also: The newer, the more complex, the more complex the more open to attacks, the more open to attacks the more vulnerable. I’d choose this approach too. Basically unhackable with totally no backdoors. If it works, don’t fix it.

    • Aniki@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      the idea that new = better is very wrong. look around, enshittification all around us.