The british army stick with a 10year old version of the land rover for the same reason - you don't want to be in a ditch in Afghanistan trying to fix a computerized engine management system with a hammer.
The point I've been trying to make is that simplicity/great-design has a context and that context is missing in the original source. Everyone here seems to be adding context, but I have to take their word for it because they are not presenting it with any supporting facts. e.g., a reference to where the British army claims to be sticking with a 10yr old version of the land rover, to avoid having to deal with computerized engine management system malfunctions in hostile situations.
While I can see and agree with the point that people are making, I would just prefer if they were substantiated.
