Radoslaw > Fine. This is the very rare scenario, when USS meaning is not obvious from the context.
Not fine and how do you know it is rare? Howard Rifkind was prompted into revealing his miscomprehension because USS was used correctly but dated when the UNIX System Services component - or its original predecessor - was thought not yet to have yet appeared. Thus Howard summoned up enough energy to make a comment. Ivan Warren then confirmed that they understood USS to mean UNIX System Services while knowing all about Unformatted System Services down to the fact that the commands and messages flowed on the SSCP-LU session. To cap it all, Mary Anne Matyaz even apologised for imagining she had misused USS to mean Unformatted System Services. This isn't a rare bump this is a festering sore! I wonder how often are folk just accepting the wrong interpretation, reading a post in which the letters USS appear in the subject or the body and then passing on when it appears to involve some aspect of UNIX System Services of which they have not heard. Given how liberally USS is misused with UNIX System Services in mind I expect quite a lot - in total contradiction to your opinion, > AFAIR during last 10 years this is second case on this list ... AFAIR the last time it was a case of ambiguity in the context of TELNET servers. This time it is wrong interpretation when the context should have been clear. Incidentally Howard Rifkind has "form" in misunderstanding USS - see the thread "VTAM USSTAB Question" in February this year - when he used the term "executable" when it should have been "LU". So the problem is not only not "rare", it is endemic and possibly incurable! > Just leave no place for ambiguity. It is not a matter of "ambiguity", it is misinterpretation bred from misuse! The argument has moved on since the last time. > This is big problem for neophytes ... The reaction of "neophyte" should be to accept correction when the error is pointed out, should it not? > ... there is not bible with official IBM acronyms available for masses. I'm glad that Ed Finnell has revealed the Holy Book! Chris Mason On Sat, 1 Aug 2009 20:07:09 +0200, R.S. <[email protected]> wrote: >Patrick O'Keefe pisze: >> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 09:47:55 -0500, McKown, John >> <[email protected]> wrote: >> >>> ... >>> How are VTAM Unformatted System Services and z/OS UNIX System >>> Services the same context? ... >> >> Because it is not "VTAM" Unformatted System Services any more. >> It is z/CS Unformatted System Services, and once the context is >> TCP/IP both Unix System Services and Unformatted System Services >> are appropriate. >> >> This whole thread exists because people reading a posting picked >> the wrong context! > >Fine. This is the very rare scenario, when USS meaning is not obvious >form the context. AFAIR during last 10 years this is second case on this >list (now I have fun thinking about those who are checking it <vbg>). > >In this case it is worth to use simply FULL NAME. Even those who are not >from IBM church will not be misinformed. Isn't it SIMPLE? Just leave no >place for ambiguity. > >I mention again case of SMS: we discuss SMS and nobody complains it is >ambigous. Or CSI (at least two meaning in mainframe world). No >complains. Why USS is treated in special way? > > > >BTW: Some "IBMians" claims USS is an *official* IBM acronym for >Unformatted SYstem Services. This is big problem for neophytes: there is >not bible with official IBM acronyms available for masses. How can I >respect The Commandments whithout knowing them? > >-- >Radoslaw Skorupka >Lodz, Poland ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
