Actually, it is mostly companies who are too reluctant to change. If it works, keep it as is, even if better technologies are the norm nowadays. Maybe this will help them move away from this obsolete Larry Ellison crapshot
If it works, keep it as is
That's a good principle though. It doesn't make the initial choice good today or even back then. But change is always a risk that may not be worth it, cause you have to make sure that the inevitable semi-chaos coming with it is at all times lower than what you have. And analyzing that may be hard.
Maybe this will help them move away from this obsolete Larry Ellison crapshot
This creates positive incentives, so yes.
Iow, everything probably goes as it should, really.
I somewhat agree. I think for tangible things (cars), you don't need to reinvent the wheel. But, tech moves fast. If a superior tech (for instance, more secure) is available but requires some discomfort (moving things around), then it is worth it to avoid this type of crap
Seemingly, most companies have a terrible ability to judge if a technology is superior, hell most of the time they lack the ability to judge if a technology is massively inferior. Companies may understand what they do but they commonly have no understanding of what they do in relation to the abstraction layers between them and said technology.
Often this technology has been in place for some time and the original creators are long gone for one reason or another. To migrate away from this system the business will need to spend a significant amount on contractors/consultants to understand both the system they have well enough, and the system they are moving to. It can be a huge expense and companies are very willing to push that off into the future.