Well, there is no debate, the word legacy can definitely be used, obviously. It’s peoples understanding of the word that needs to be modified!
Maybe I could have been clearer. It’s
how the word is used that’s causing debate. I think everyone here understands that the terminal is legacy for most, just like a horse is legacy for most. But it’s when that qualifier “for most” is left out, and someone just says “terminal is legacy”, that the nuances of the meaning are unclear.
Take another example:
”Foxes are brown.”
Someone could easily read that to mean all foxes are brown, although technically it could just mean that two foxes are brown and the rest could be purple. Or it could mean that half are brown and half are purple, or most are brown a couple are purple. Without more information, it’s just a very open-ended and unclear statement.
Obviously, you’ve made your view clear, that terminal is legacy for most, but not for some, and I agree. But someone else could say “terminal is legacy” and imply that it’s an outdated, inferior way of doing things. That’s why, again in my opinion, unless everyone already understands which specific group one is referring to, one should always add qualifiers like “for most” when making these kinds of statements. What’s obvious to the speaker is many times not obvious to the listener.