OK, you win. USS is officially only to be used when speaking of VTAM's table thing.
We've all seen the references, and what is official, and what is right, and what is not, and who says it shouldn't have been. You're right. You win! Problem is, most of us just don't care. Really. We don't care what is right and what is a misuse of an acronym. Really. We just don't care. So, if you (and some others I'm sure) want to preserve the purity of the acronym USS, good for you. Don't misuse it. Just leave the rest of us out of it. We are sick of the posturing, the arguing, the "I'm right / you're wrong". We don't care. We're tired of a few having to prove their self worth by arguing a point that many just don't care about. Most of us are not confused when the same acronym is used to represent two different things. Happens quite often. Especially with IBM. We get the context. We understand the question being asked, and are frankly, more concerned with solving a technical question than correcting. Misspelled word? Don't care. Poor English? So what! Misused acronym? Really don't care. Most of us are smart enough to figure it out. Tom Chicklon -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Monday, May 02, 2011 4:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: An unnecessary controversy (Was: Ported tools for z/OS on ADCD) Ted Since the cat's been let out of the bag once more, I'll try to clean up the usual mess yet again! I don't know what malign influence even led me to look at this thread which would otherwise, from the subject line, not be of interest. It must be having to change the archive month! Indeed, I wonder how often this particular cat has been let loose under the disguise of a subject line which I will not have thought to try to follow and the resulting disinformation gone unchallenged. > Is anybody else sick of the USS argument? Well, in a sense I am but not for the same reason as you - from the following evidence. > IBM has used the term in many documents. And they are each and every last one of them wrong. First they are wrong because of the following which I seem to be obliged to trot out against the forces of massive obstinacy every time: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/terminology/u.html#x2042481 Then John Eells (John Eells <[email protected]>) clarified the matter long ago. In principle this should clear the matter up without question but I guess there's too much IBM-MAIN "street cred" involved in defending this indefensible position. I'll even make it just that little bit easier for you this time since I have the impression it would have gone too much against the grain actually to follow up on my previous attempts to point you to this post: <quote> > I still think that IBM should have chosen another acronym for Unix than USS. I believe VTAM USS table is still valid, and still used, so it is confusing to me that IBM should use the same acronym for something that is still in use. We did not chose "USS" as an acronym for z/OS UNIX System Services. It's not on the list of names people are supposed to use, and nobody in IBM should use this abbreviation to mean z/OS UNIX System Services. (Anyone from IBM who thinks differently should contact me so I can tell them why they're wrong.) In reality, herding cats is easier than making absolutely sure that everyone uses the correct full and short names all the time in all contexts, formal and informal, but we keep trying. </quote> http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0907&L=ibm- main&T=0&F=&S=&P=198809 It was only after digging this up that I can see we both decided that "cats" were involved! > So, I tend to hold that over a few on IBM-MAIN. Well thank you for the attempt at protection but I fear it won't work, there is one enormous hole! > Terminology evolves. Not when it leads to ambiguity as this misuse strongly has the risk of doing. It's only the misled and those who persist in continuing to mislead who imagine they are evolving. Chris Mason On Sun, 1 May 2011 17:38:12 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <[email protected]> wrote: >>It's not USSR (;-) ) but USS. > >Is anybody else sick of the USS argument? > >IBM has used the term in many documents. > >So, I tend to hold that over a few on IBM-MAIN. > >Terminology evolves. >- >Ted MacNEIL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html This e-mail transmission contains information that is confidential and may be privileged. It is intended only for the addressee(s) named above. If you receive this e-mail in error, please do not read, copy or disseminate it in any manner. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information is prohibited. Please reply to the message immediately by informing the sender that the message was misdirected. After replying, please erase it from your computer system. Your assistance in correcting this error is appreciated. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
