In order not to disturb those delicate souls who can't take too much of this topic, I have consolidated my responses.
--- >From Sebastian Welton Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:48:13 -0500 > ... then maybe IBM will have to change ***all*** their manuals. Obviously untrue! Of the 400 plus manuals in the z/OS elements and features bookshelves[1], about 40 are contaminated. Thus I'll allow an order of magnitude of 10 percent as a general estimate overall. It is not an infeasible objective to have essentially corrected with a bit of effort. Where the incorrect use appears, it, in effect, corresponds to John Eells's "stray cats" and they tend to appear in ones and twos in most manuals. In other words, it is never systematic. Looking back over some releases I have noticed some new text with a "stray cat" get herded back after an edition or two. I'll admit it doesn't happen every time and there a bit of work to be done. Thank you for the reminder that not all the contagion is to be found on the z/OS elements and features bookshelves and that contagion is more likely when the origin of the manual is the untrammelled domain of previously "vendor" products. > Confusion could abound for the novice ... Indeed it could but, more likely, inevitably will. That is the major concern I try to emphasise but the noisy ones ignore. > ... but I'm pretty sure that if someone sees: ... they are going to know what > the book is discussing. That's as may be. But when someone saw <quote> Someone got the uss screen, was able to get into the production CICS, </quote> he demonstrated he completely misunderstood what the post was discussing. Or let me take an invented example: But when someone sees <invented quote> Use an USS command to access the application. If you made a mistake, you will be able to see from the USS message returned what your mistake was. </invented quote> and the reader has had no prior contact with this correct usage - for which the manual author may justifiably have felt no need whatsoever for a so-called "clarification" - they are *not* going to know what the book is discussing and they are going to be all at sea! Your "confused novice" may well have his or her eyes opened eventually with a bit of a shock when, because of "downsizing", the old SNA/VTAM specialist is retired to the golf course and this "novice" is expected to take over. I've seen it happen. Fortunately I know there was a manager who could admit to dealing with it if necessary - his userid was on the ancient source files! - [1] http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/bkserv/zshelves13.html --- >From Kirk Wolf Wed, 21 Mar 2012 10:57:58 -0500 > Thank goodness IBM is spending time correcting "USS" atrocities rather than > improving z/OS Unix. Compensating for the sarcasm, I imagine the correction took about half an hour if my opposite experience over *re*introducing the correct abbreviation into the "IBM z/OS V1Rxx Communications Server TCP/IP Implementation" set of manuals a while ago is anything to go by. These computer thingamajigs are pretty good at this sort of thing! Incidentally ITSO is not in the business of actually improving products - that's development. ITSO have the responsibility to advise on how to use products, typically in combination, and provide background, tutorials and the like. --- >From Rob Schramm Wed, 21 Mar 2012 12:07:00 -0400 > I know that only a very short list of people will ever be truly confused by > USS (unformatted system services) and USS (unix system services) references How can you possibly know anything of the sort! Even among IBM-MAIN subscribers we generally hear only from the spittle-flecked brigade on this topic - although I'm encouraged by some who have put their heads above the parapet and risked the "slings and arrows" of the "outraged" in order to express agreement. Try - hard this time - to understand the response above to Sebastian Walton. --- >From Dick Bond Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:16:32 -0700 > I agree with Chris Mason. Thank you! > IBM should have never started called it USS ... In principle - as John Eells explained to Eric Bielefeld who made the same assertion - IBM never did. It was careless IBM employees - starting - if the manuals I have tracked are anything to go by - with one author in one manual of three in the German development lab prior even to the name change from OpenEdition to UNIX System Services. > IBM adores putting a "z" in front of everything (for some clueless reason) ... There's no accounting for the ideas "suits" get into their heads! Actually in a way, there is: if a "suit" pays for some "marketing" advice, it is likely to be introduced - because it was paid for, no matter how ridiculous. In MBA courses, this tendency is discouraged, but I guess the message doesn't always get through. --- >From Mark Zelden Mon, 26 Mar 2012 13:21:56 -0500 > but "USS" started long before "z" was ever around. Approximately a quarter of a century, from 1977 to 2001[1]. > BTW, I still see OMVS used a lot as well. Perhaps not unconnected with the default value of the BPXPRMxx STARTUP_PROC parameter and the SAF segment token. > The problem ... is that you can't go back and rewrite history. Precisely. The abbreviation, in an IBM context, was assigned in the mid-1970s, long before any flavour of UNIX System Services. > Even if "MVS" was not a component of z/OS, or IBM renamed the MVS component > to something else, everyone would still call it MVS. Including the regular IBM manuals: z/OS V1R13.0 MVS Bookshelf http://publibz.boulder.ibm.com/cgi-bin/bookmgr_OS390/Shelves/iea2bkb3 - [1] Using the date on the z/OS V1R1 bookshelves page as a guide. http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/bkserv/zshelves1.html --- >From Phil Smith Mon, 26 Mar 2012 11:36:04 -0700 > IBM should have a TLA Czar ... who must rule on all such acronyms. If you read through the original post, you'll see that any enforcement authority person within IBM for an abbreviation of any number of letters has at his or her disposal the necessary guideline. I would expect such an authority to be a set of editors associated with each manual-writing department just as ITSO has/used to have. --- >From zMan Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:40:28 -0400 > Definition of TL;DR. The definition of "tl dr" appears to be "too long; didnt read." So perhaps a definition of zMan, whoever he is, is "There's none so blind as those who will not see!" --- >From Herman Stocker Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:52:40 -0400 > Looking a Acronym finder for USS: > I see Unix System Service (IBM) as number 6 > And Unix System Services as number 14 Does it not strike you as important that, when looking for an abbreviation in an IBM context, you should use IBM web pages - at least in the first instance? Please actually read through the initial post in order to discover precisely the correct abbreviation for z/OS UNIX System Services. Furthermore you would signally *not* have found the incorrect abbreviation. Incidentally a while ago by chance I found some abbreviation site which actually had the correct abbreviation placed first. So it depends where you happen to look and how fastidious your chosen site is. This point has been examined already not so long ago. It was decided that, depending on the volume of misuse by all and sundry, these sites just pick up what they can. Thus, if the "stray cats" reproduce like the rats we would like them to catch perhaps, they may have so multiplied that they thoroughly confuse these poorly managed sites. As a consequence of this I tend to avoid using the abbreviation in any but the correct context - in case these sites are incapable of correctly interpreting negatives! > I think it is time to except it. Indeed it is, in the sense that "except" means "eschew"! --- >From Rob Schramm Mon, 26 Mar 2012 15:15:54 -0400 > I suppose that this conversation will continue in some form until USS becomes > rebranded as something other than unix system services. It never has been so "branded"!!! > Arrrgh!! (goes the rebel USS user) You probably are an USS user such as when you last logged on to TSO. Why don't you check? --- >From Kirk Wolf Mon, 26 Mar 2012 16:29:18 -0500 > Just about everyone is tired of the USS crap. You can speak for yourself and possibly the members of Brigadier MacNeil's brigade but it's noticeable that, by and large, in the posts in which I take an interest and in the thread subject lines in general, there appears to be a tendency *not* to misuse. Even, I have noticed, when misuse is heavily invited by the original poster - when I often check in order to see if the lead is followed. I must assume that there are some who are mostly tired of the saliva-laden flak which brigade members dispense and so keep there heads down behind the parapet. > 1) IBM has now had three names: Open Edition MVS, Unix System Services, and > now z/OS Unix (System Services). The first two had usable (and widely used) > acronyms, where as "z/OS Unix " really doesn't. If you'd read the initial post carefully, you'd know that there was a formal change from OpenEdition (one word) to OS/390 UNIX System Services with the abbreviation OS/390 UNIX and that, with the change from OS/390 to z/OS, the name became z/OS UNIX System Services with the abbreviation z/OS UNIX. > The first two had usable (and widely used) acronyms, where as "z/OS Unix " > really doesn't. Not unrelated to "z/OS UNIX" *being* a sanctioned abbreviation already. What need an acronym? > 2) Some folks are of the strong opinion that acronyms *MUST* be unique, ... Possibly, but this is *not* my opinion. I have no argument with the US navy! However, unique within context is just sensible and the context here is any document which could, for example, interest subscribers to IBM-MAIN. > ... whereas I don't care so long as they are clear in context. Well, it's evident that you did *not* take the trouble to read my initial post because, as I have on a number of previous occasions, I scotched this persistent belief that the misuse is excused because the context will make it clear. I also covered the additional "context" of the novice's understanding. Please do us all the courtesy of reading posts upon which you decide to comment. > Sure, "USS" is not an IBM sanctioned acronym - so what? A point just addressed. You have something more to say on the matter or shall I simply assume you have added yourself to the spittle-flecked brigade. The brigadier will be pleased! > 3) IBM-MAIN thrives on pedantic posts (like this one ...) I posted my heeded comment on the redbook because, since there were many references to IBM-MAIN exchanges, it seemed only polite. > a) don't use "USS" since it is not an official IBM acronym for z/OS Unix Well, perhaps you just renounced your membership. The brigadier will be disappointed! Incidentally I would urge everyone to use USS just as often as they have the occasion so to do when they don't want to wear down their fingertips typing "unformatted system services"! In principle, if the world were set to rights, there would be no need for any elaboration on that usage. > b) don't correct someone who does. As regards IBM-MAIN and other lists/fora/whatever I do not provide corrections in every case. - I will attempt to correct ambiguous subject lines even if the content indicates there is a clear misuse since this is an unnecessary irritation for some and surely correct etiquette is to avoid irritation *in all cases*. Incidentally claiming to be irritated by someone pointing out correct usage is a perverse form of irritation! This has actually happened only once in a light-hearted way - not that the brigade saw it that way of course![1] - Otherwise, if I contribute to a thread where there is some misuse and it is almost certainly likely to involve a Communications Server topic and probably introduces ambiguity, I will *always* offer a correction. The brigade will of course then fire off a few shots just to maintain their preferred level of simulated irritation. - [1] The original poster didn't see the humour either although I expected he would given the assistance I had provided in some earlier posts on VTAM matters. This illustrated the other "ambiguity" problem actually since he been so bamboozled by the incorrect usage he didn't recognise the correct usage despite the fact he must be working with it! --- >From Bob Lester Mon, 26 Mar 2012 21:35:19 +0000 > Ah, the voice of reason. > > a) don't use "USS" since it is not an official IBM acronym for z/OS Unix otherwise(?) > Off with his Head!!! Well, I'd consider that to be going just a bit too far! --- >From Jaya Relim Mon, 26 Mar 2012 14:36:13 -0700 > ... while not the popular position, ... You are basing you measure of popularity on garrularity[1]. That's not reliable. Based on what I observe in the not so many posts I happen to examine and notice what expressions are used and what are *not* used, I believe the message is taking hold among subscribers in general. > ... I'm with Chris Mason on this. Thank you! - [1] Google doesn't seem to approve of this word but it obviously derives from "garrulous". --- >From Shmuel Metz Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:29:37 -0400 > 4.) IBM has a list of official acronyms and "Unix system Services" is not in > it. Just to reiterate from the initial post: <outer quote> Glossary of z/OS terms and abbreviations http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/zos/basics/index.jsp?topic=/com.ibm.zglossary.doc/zglossary.html ... <quote> z/OS UNIX System Services (z/OS UNIX). z/OS services that support a UNIX-like environment. ... </quote> </outer quote> --- >From Paul Gilmartin Mon, 26 Mar 2012 18:40:17 -0500 > >a) don't use "USS" since it is not an official IBM acronym for z/OS Unix > >b) don't correct someone who does. > You forgot: > c) don't boast about your forays into (a) and (b). Although I can imagine "boasting" about *not* doing something, I believe I'd need some prompting for determining when to do so! --- >From Mike Schwab Tue, 27 Mar 2012 05:58:50 -0500 > Since they have AIX on Power, ... Incidentally, IBM really did make a bit of a boo-boo over "POWER". - Priority Output Writers, Execution Processors and Input Readers This is a DOS/360 component dating from 1969 when I was a budding DOS specialist - cut off at the knees in order to follow the "OS/360" path. This POWER is still with us in z/VSE. - Performance Optimization With Enhanced RISC This appeared all of 21 years later. Did the AIX folk ask the VSE folk permission to duplicate the use of the abbreviation "POWER"? Does anyone know? --- >From Dick Bond Tue, 27 Mar 2012 08:03:42 -0700 > This could go another route and ask why every IBM product that is "old", > "new" or "purchased via OEM", seems to be given the Tivoli brand name? ;-) I was around when IBM invited Tivoli into its fold. There was a bit of a culture clash! Part of the agreement seems to be to rebrand anything - which had anything to do with system or network management with the prefix Tivoli. Thus the MVS flavour of NetView which owed absolutely nothing whatsoever in this world to the name of the location of Hadrian's villa, suddenly became so labelled! --- >From Alan Altmark Tue, 27 Mar 2012 22:17:01 -0500 > You cannot take other peoples' trademarks and alter them or use them without > permission. Well put! I'm sure the folk from VTAM in particular and z/OS Communications Server in general thank you for your support! And, by the way, I expect the United States Navy is entirely content to steam away unperturbed! --- Chris Mason ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
