Wayne When I get bored preparing replies, I check to see what other work is piling up, typically handled chronologically. This one however is easy since all the answers are out there in recent posts so it can jump the queue!
> I have gone out of my way to respond to this, ... Much appreciated! > ... and this will be my only comment. You shouldn't make promises you can't be sure you will be able to resist the urge not to keep! > Your objection to using USS when referring to z/OS Unix System Services seems to be rooted in the concept that "it does matter since it can cause ambiguity." Don Grinsell was ahead of you here and he prompted me to dig out a case. But I also showed how there could be a problem in Subject lines even if the matter was resolved in the body of the post - not guaranteed: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1105&L=ibm- main&D=1&T=0&O=D&P=28213 This is another example I managed to recall how to find: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1105&L=ibm- main&D=1&T=0&O=D&P=28414 There have been others because, when TELNET is mentioned, it may involve UNIX System Services or it might actually involve TN3270 and Unformatted System Services, the "registered" owner of the TLA. Unfortunately, I can't recall enough keywords to be able to find them. They are not all that frequent as you can tell. You may remember a Patrick (Pat) O'Keefe who has inhabited IBM communications-oriented "fora" - as we liked to call them - from 15 years or so ago to a few years ago. He was always royally pants-wetting over the misuse in Subjects - and said so. He was like any of the more specialised brethren using the lists who took an interest in a limited field and very much resented being obliged to dip into posts in which he has no interest whatsoever based on a crummy Subject line. I knew - and still know - from where he was coming! > However, you made this complaint about the TLA choice in a thread titled "Ported Tools in z/OS ADCD." Not strictly. 1. I didn't make the complaint, I merely responded to an untenable position - since acknowledged by the perpetrator - very reluctantly - to be such. 2. When I got involved, I promptly changed the Subject to "An unnecessary controversy (Was: Ported tools for z/OS on ADCD)". > However when I read the message, ... You'll need to indicate what message that might be. The thread itself concluded neatly in April. There was a challenge over the dread 3 characters - the "TLA" - from one of the "usual suspects" which caused another "usual suspect"to respond - as they do - it's an IBM-MAIN spectator sport!: http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1105&L=ibm- main&T=0&F=&S=&P=1371 (nonsense post) http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1105&L=ibm- main&T=0&F=&S=&P=3123 It was the third post that included the untenable position and - some would say unfortunately - I noticed it. I addressed why it was an untenable position and also - this maybe where you've jumped in - checked back to the two posts which gave rise to the crucial comment - since they, according to very strict interpretation, had, for the sake of consistency, to be corrected. http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1105&L=ibm- main&T=0&F=&S=&P=4648 http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind1105&L=ibm- main&T=0&F=&S=&P=4787 You'll note that was in the renamed thread and followed the post which addressed the heart of the problem. > ... it makes reference to a few Unix file structures, but no reference to problems with logging on, which is the only place that Unformatted System Services will come into play, so were is the ambiguity? So, although a misuse, there was no actual problem - mentioned anyhow - surrounding the accessing the z/OS UNIX environment - nor, if you look closely at the posts, was there any suggestion that there was. Simply they were the source of the misuse furore and an explanation of why seemed appropriate. The problem with the misuse is that it has the *potential* - your "can" I notice on review - to be ambiguous and until people stop using it, particularly "newbie"s of which South and East Asia is busting will continue to use terminology which does not correspond to the rowing eight: http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/terminology/ and so put many of us off our stroke! Incidentally, can you - or John Eells http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0907&L=ibm- main&T=0&F=&S=&P=198809 - explain how the Health Checker got to use unapproved initialisms so to mislead a number of very obstinate IBM-MAIN subscribers. Note that I recently had to help Mike Ebbers ([email protected]) in Poughkeepsie ITSO sort out a problem of overcorrection in the z/OS Communications Services V1R12 four-volume redbook set following somebody having pointed out that the initialism was inappropriate. The problem was that even the correct occurrences were obliterated with "UNIX System Services"! It's all down to the mess of having a documented correct use and an incorrect use which IBM is not making anything like enough effort to correct at source. Chris Mason On Thu, 5 May 2011 08:40:50 -0500, Wayne Driscoll <[email protected]> wrote: >Chris, >I have gone out of my way to respond to this, and this will be my only >comment. Your objection to using USS when referring to z/OS Unix System >Services seems to be rooted in the concept that "it does matter since it >can cause ambiguity." However, you made this complaint about the TLA >choice in a thread titled "Ported Tools in z/OS ADCD." However when I >read the message, it makes reference to a few Unix file structures, but no >reference to problems with logging on, which is the only place that >Unformatted System Services will come into play, so were is the ambiguity? > >=============================================== >Wayne Driscoll >OMEGAMON DB2 L3 Support/Development >wdrisco(AT)us.ibm.com >=============================================== > > > >From: >Chris Mason <[email protected]> >To: >[email protected] >Date: >05/04/2011 09:03 PM >Subject: >Re: POHD: vs UTE (was: USS vs USS) >Sent by: >IBM Mainframe Discussion List <[email protected]> > > > >Kirk > >Before I address this ridiculous post directly, let me remind you how we >got >here. > >Ted MacNeil decided to make the claim that something that was wrong was >right. Unchallenged your to be nurtured "newbies" might get the impression > >that he was indeed right and so they might continue in all innocence with >the >error. > >As I have indicated many times before, it does matter since it can cause >ambiguity. > >The discussion has actually established what is right and what is wrong >and >Ted MacNeil has been obliged to depart - we hope - admitting that he is >wrong but sticking to his wrongness out of spite. > >In trying to get that cleared up I deliberately created a new thread >containing >the words "unnecessary controversy" so that any who needed to stay away >could and only the recalcitrants and recusants need participate - along >with a >few who have seen the light and helped out, as it were. > >Unfortunately, yet another thread was started with rather poor >"list-craft" >since it was not linked to the "unnecessary controversy" thread. Here the >errors persisted in the shape of some saying what was wrong was right but >maybe it shouldn't be. Again some cleaning up was required and, because >the >connection was not made, a certain amount of repetition was needed to be >sure the correct message got through. > >This was and continues to be a technical exchange about proper words. >Unlike >with a rose, we don't have smell to guide us. > >Nevertheless, this second thread had a peculiar thread title, sufficiently > >peculiar for there to be no need for those not thinking they needed to be >involved to participate. > >So, given the thread titles, I don't see why you're making this fuss. It >is not >obligatory actually to read each post which crops up on IBM-MAIN. I don't. >It >was only the month change that - some, including myself, might say >unfortunately - somehow prompted me to look into something involving >"ported >tools". > >Chris Mason ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
