Tom If you choose to present your face at the bars, you may be sure I will continue to rattle - even harder and I fear your continued obduracy forces me to drag up an embarrassment in order to show that it most definitely does matter and the misuse should not simply be eschewed by those of us wanting to refer to what is covered by
http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/terminology/u.html#x2042481 This pair of posts dates from July 2009. The subject was "Mainframe hacking". A lady was telling a story of a "hack" which included the following two sentences: <quote> I had one once, circa 1992-1993. ... Someone got the uss screen, was able to get into the production CICS, and the CECI command was not protected, so they were able to shut the CICS down. </quote> A gentleman responded: <quote> Interesting, I didn't think that back in '93 MVS 4.3 had a USS piece. </quote> See http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0907&L=ibm- main&D=0&T=0&P=131204 and http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0907&L=ibm- main&D=0&T=0&P=132279 I believe the gentleman involved indicated elsewhere that it was not because he wasn't familiar with the VTAM entity, it's just that the careless - and we now have one more to add to the count - have so misused the initialism - and so suffused the brains of the unwary - that he didn't even notice how the proper use fitted the context so very much better! Somewhere I have an exchange causing more likely confusion involving TELNET (or TN3270) and access to UNIX System Services (z/OS UNIX or zUNIX). I guess one of these days I may have to dig it out in an effort at least to convince the lurkers if not the protagonists. > OK, you win. USS is officially only to be used when speaking of VTAM's table thing. Wrong! You should read my previous posts again and make some effort to understand this time! Incidentally this is win-win or nothing to do with winning. It's just being sensibly correct. I don't think there will ever be any problems referring to Unformatted System Services for the two - not just VTAM and there's the rub! - components of Communications Server. It's the use in other potentially ambiguous contexts that causes all the problems - and that includes Subject lines when the context is likely not yet to be fully determined. > Problem is, most of us just don't care. Well, you are likely to cause trouble because of your carelessness - seven times over, no less! In this case careless talk does not cost lives but it can cause embarrassment, not to say frustration and irritation. > Most of us are smart enough to figure it out. But some aren't and with the increasing numbers of non-English speakers who hope to benefit from this list, don't you feel ashamed that you can say you don't care to be accurate when you so easily can be? > Just leave the rest of us out of it. That's so very obviously not possible because it's the "rest of you" who are at risk. > 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. Mostly I spend my time with IBM-MAIN and sometimes other lists on as extensive an explanation as I feel is warranted. I'm involved with this one only because - quite independently of any effort whatsoever relating to the question asked - one of the usual suspects jumped in with well-worn falsehoods. By chance I happened to spot them and so the genie had to be stuffed back in the bottle as best it could be. Finally "most of" isn't "all of" which those of us who care about others - except the terminally difficult of course - bear in mind. Chris Mason On Mon, 2 May 2011 09:25:51 -0400, Chicklon, Thomas <[email protected]> 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 > >-----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
