Ed If you go back in the thread to my post of "Fri 15 Dec 2006 12:41", using the Google Groups date and time stamp, you'll see an analysis of where "USS" is used in the "official" redbooks - and as much of an explanation as I can muster indicating that, by and large, "officially", "USS" is avoided in UNIX System Services documentation.
Appealing to the use of USS in redbooks doesn't count - although I guess it ought to. ITSO employs editors who are supposed to check that the "party line" is observed. If "USS" is used extensively in the redbooks on the UNIX System Services topic - which is what you are implying - the Poughkeepsie editors have clearly not been told that, "officially", "USS" is forbidden. Incidentally, the redbooks are not the produce of the developers, they are produced - in principle - by users, like yourself in fact. Chris Mason ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ed Finnell" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, 19 December, 2006 3:33 PM Subject: Re: S80A loading CEEMENU3 > > In a message dated 12/19/2006 7:59:27 A.M. Central Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > approved as a short name for z/OS UNIX System Services. (It > wasn't because nobody tried.) Believe me, I'd love to have to do > less typing! > > > > >> > Yazbut the formal rules and the common usage don't bear much resemblance. > The Open Edition developers seem to have adopted USS in their tags and sigs and > appears in the title of many of their Redbooks. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
