A year and a half ago, I published a somewhat controversial blog post:

35th IBM i Anniversary: Time to Move Forward

In that post, I proposed the idea of creating two parallel versions of IBM i:

1. The "Legacy" Version:
   This would be the final iteration of the "classic" IBM i. It would include all the older features and serve as a Long-Term Release (LTR)—noting that all IBM i releases are technically LTRs, but this version would offer extended support to keep legacy software operational. This platform would only receive critical security patches, but not necessarily all the security enhancements introduced in newer versions.

2. The "Slim" Version:
   A streamlined version of IBM i that excludes outdated features like the S/36 environment, SEU, and old compilers. This version would be the sole recipient of new operating system functionality and enhancements moving forward.

While many people embraced the idea, others argued it would spell the end of the platform. From my perspective, this is the only viable path for the platform’s future. As it stands now, IBM i suffers from the same challenges as any customer application weighed down by technical debt—a massive, tangled legacy of features and code that hampers innovation.

To address the critical concern of legacy compatibility, we could introduce tools and technologies to automatically convert or adapt users' legacy code so it can run efficiently on the new "slim" version. Generative AI and modern transformation techniques could bridge the gap, translating old codebases into modern equivalents compatible with the streamlined platform. This approach would help preserve investments in existing applications while encouraging users to transition to a cleaner, more future-proof system.

If we can successfully leverage AI for this purpose, why not take this opportunity to make IBM i version “+1” or “+2” the final "legacy" version? From there, we could introduce a fresh, modern operating system—one that retains IBM i’s strengths but is free from its technical debt.

I believe this approach would benefit the next generation of developers in Rochester, as well as forward-thinking customers who recognize IBM i as a superior alternative to the complexities of Kubernetes and similar platforms.

Clinging to the past is what truly risks killing the platform. Like it or not, the decline of IBM i has largely been driven by users and IT professionals who resisted change. If we want the platform to thrive, we need to let go of what holds it back and embrace a future that’s lighter, more agile, and more innovative—with tools that make the transition easier for everyone.