Hi Cheryl,
It's got my vote! Thanks, Linda ----- Original Message ----- From: "Cheryl Walker" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Monday, June 27, 2011 12:25:01 PM Subject: Re: An unnecessary controversy (Was: Ported tools for z/OS on ADCD) Tom and others, I read my IBM-Main emails by threading them, so whenever I find a very long thread I simply delete it because I know it's been hijacked. I don't have enough time in my life to deal with those threads. For some unknown reason, I started reading this. Tom, I loved your very sane response, but as a writer and publisher I will not stop using USS when it makes sense for a couple of other reasons. IBMers use it too often to get all legal about it (as you'll see below). 1. Your comment of "Misused acronym? Really don't care. Most of us are smart enough to figure it out." hits the nail on the head. Most people can figure it out. My readers can certainly figure it out, and a growing percentage of them are newbies. 2. Readability. As a writer, I want to make my sentences easy to read and understandable. Having no acronym tends to cut the flow of reading. I justify my use of it by the next reason (#3). I'm just really, really, glad that IBM started using zManager to refer to the zEnterprise Unified Resource Manager. As an aside, I found several places where IBM specifically uses the following: "z/OS UNIX System Services (z/OS UNIX)". After finding IBM's official abbreviation of z/OS UNIX, I might use that more often. 3. Officially, IBM may not support the acronym of USS, but they have yet to bring their employees in line. As long as you have articles like these on the IBM website, you won't eliminate the use of USS: a. Technote 1190356, Finding help for tuning USS (Unix Systems Services), 18Jan2011 (there are dozens of references like this). https://www-304.ibm.com/support/docview.wss?uid=swg21190356. This was updated 18Jan2011. Problem(Abstract) Tuning USS for an E2E (End-to-end) environment requires knowledge which may be new to customers installing and maintaining TWS for z/OS . Cause USS is a new area for many customers Resolving the problem First, check the default settings for the BPX parameters in SAMPLIB member BPXPRMXX (SYS1.SAMPLIB(BPXPRMXX). Also review the recommendations in INFO APAR II11711 , a copy of which is attached to this document. There is also a discussion of USS in chapters 4 and 8 of the redbook "Customizing IBM Tivoli Workload Scheduler for z/OS V8.2 to Improve Performance" ( publication number SG24-6352-00 ) which is available at http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246352.pdf. b. IBM Redbook - http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg246989.pdf - SG24-6989, ABCs of z/OS System Programming: Volume 9 (z/OS UNIX System Services) has 40 entries where it uses the term 'USS'. Updated 12May2011. Isn't this the z/OS UNIX bible? c. IBM Redbook - http://www.redbooks.ibm.com/redbooks/pdfs/sg247853.pdf - SG24-7853, z/OS V1R12 Implementation has over 65 references to USS. Updated 27Apr2011. If people don't understand USS in this context, then it becomes problematic. d. Dozens of APARs use USS to mean z/OS UNIX. e. When I Googled 'ibm uss', the first hit was this - http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/features/unix/, which is the home page for z/OS UNIX System Services. I assume that most of you know that Google keeps your history so that it can find the best search for you. Because I tend to go to UNIX pages more than I go to VTAM pages, my results will vary from others. d. All z/OS Health Checks begin with USS_. Because of these and many other references, I think that the best solution is for IBM to confirm a second use of USS. The reason that I spent time on this research is that I intend to submit it as a SHARE requirement to make that request to IBM. Cheers! Cheryl ====================== Cheryl Watson Watson & Walker, Inc. www.watsonwalker.com 941-266-6609 ====================== On May 2, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Chicklon, Thomas wrote: 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
