Actually I find a good bit of truth in that comment. Many people think that the next big thing will "change everything" and somehow magically fix all their problems. I see it all the time in various jobs. Actual discussion the other day (names of things changed to protect the guilty):
One of those people: "Well, SuperProgram 11.7 can track events and send them to the manager's Blackberry!"
Me: "I could do that ten years ago by stringing shell scripts together and running it via cron. It's called email. Is there even a defendable business reason to that? The business requirements we have in front of us say that it needs to display an alert on terminal emulator screen that the actual users are used to using."
One of those people: "But why would you keep using that old terminal thing. SuperProgram 11.7 will make it all point and click and put it in a browser!"
Me: "Again, business reason to do that? Right now they spend all day on their terminal. Now you're going to make them pick up the mouse and switch between applications. And spend more money on this product to do it. These people are really fast with the interface they've gotten used to over the last twenty years."
One of those people: "But nobody knows how to use a terminal, and you can't do it on a tablet!"
Me: "Correction: you don't know how to use a terminal. We have lots of training material on how to use this thing. And there are no tablets in our data entry office. There are a bunch of people very skilled at using their terminal based app for data entry and retrieval, and a bunch of machines already set up to do that."
People always think the big shiny new thing is "better", rather than the old boring workhorse. Do those technologies have a place? Absolutely. Is there anything wrong with sticking with terminal based text apps written in C and ncurses? Hell no, especially if you can't produce data to show that the users would be more productive on the new stuff.