Radoslaw
First, please accept my apologies for misspelling your name.[1]
'unformated' was a typo
Well, that makes two of us. The "dumb" spell-checker allowed my "fort" to be
something of a weakness!
I suppose I should have realised from your contribution to an earlier debate
on this topic that you do not recognise that there is "official" and
"unofficial" with regard to the use of abbreviations. This is a distinction
which I have learned from my many years within, as it were, the IBM fold. I
suppose over the years I must have noticed many misuses from others within
the fold and I may even have been confused by them - as are folk who have to
try to guess what an abbreviation might be if not explained. Of course, if
you have not imbibed this principle, any abbreviation is acceptable anywhere
and insisting on a sort of "prior art" principle will not get me anywhere.
(and yes, I saw your stats about Unix and USS, but my conclusion is
contrary to yours: USS *is used as Unix System Services* in IBM doco).
It's very difficult to argue with someone who swears white is black! I
wonder where John Chase imagined the injected logic was coming from. This
bracketed comment is a black hole for logic!
Perhaps you could direct your thoughts to *why* USS is *not*[2] used in the
"books" on the "UNIX System Services" "bookshelf". "The authors were too
stupid to waste their time not doing so" or "I don't know" are not
acceptable reasons.
Incidentally a post has just flown by where an IBM developer has, in effect,
had to rap the redbook authors on the knuckles for talking about an
"unofficial" command thereby indicating how the redbook authors are
independent of IBM orthodoxy. Thus is just in case you were going to try to
revive the idea that redbook content was IBM orthodoxy.
Actually paying attention to what I wrote may well have *saved* you time in
composing a reply or two.
Since you find it so difficult to understand I'll repeat yet again the point
I was trying to get across in conjunction with your "pontification" and
"reason to avoid some acronyms" and all I have to do is pick out some text
from a short post in reply to Peter Hunkeler who also didn't take care to
read my original post commenting on Phil Smith's "credo":
<quote>
Note that I was correcting here an erroneous ***belief***, not *usage* ...
</quote>
Thus I am *not* saying do *not* use USS wherever you feel it will correctly
be understood.
Be aware that, if the IBM-MAIN subject concerns TELNET, it may be ambiguous,
so take care.
Be aware that the initials[3] *may* cause confusion in IBM support circles
as mentioned by Steve Thompson. Mark Zelden suspects this can't happen
because the you are obliged to state the concerned component initially. I
think this may be 90 to 99 percent rather than 100.
Note that removing the double negative - "Thus I am saying do use USS
wherever you feel it will correctly be understood." - is not necessarily
what I am saying. I could not encourage what I myself would not do given
that I apply different criteria for the use of abbreviations.
If there is ever a context where "Electronic Technical Response" and
"External Time Reference" might cause confusion then it would make sense to
spell out probably both to be sure of clarity. Otherwise, of course, don't
bother. However, since neither is an IBM software component (nor - as far as
I know - is ETR an abbreviation for an IBM software component) or an
abbreviation for a control block name, for example, to identify another
relevant and a rich field for abbreviations in an IBM context, this is not
an useful example.
-
Contrary to what you say - false modesty? - I find your use of English
excellent. This means, incidentally, I don't feel obliged to have to make
allowances!
If occasion arises - as now - I'll help. Your English is so good it seems a
shame not to move it on the last mile - sorry 8/5 kilometres.
The "to" that makes an infinitive - always split if the slightest chance
arises by our colleagues on the other side of the Atlantic - among other
things has one "o". The "to" - how can I put this easily - that has a looong
"o" needs two "o"s as in "too". There are examples above and I have one
below.
"Much" describes a lot of something which is indivisible - at least
semantically. "Many" describes a lot of something which is divisible. Thus
we say *much* sand but *many* grains of sand. Not knowing Polish I can't be
precise but there are some irritations in this area to be found between
English and, say, French. One is "software" in English but "logiciel" in
French. In French "logiciel" really means "an item of software" but you are
likely to hear "many softwares" from a French speaker rather than "much
software". I'm a very poor French speaker, but I expect "plusieurs" means
both "many" and "much" so that doesn't help - just like I have to think too
hard about whether to use "savoir" or "connaitre" to be fluent.
And I've just seen a post of yours where you appear to be following the
French fashion over "software". A word representing something which is
semantically indivisible never has an indefinite article in front of it.
Thus "a sand" is wrong while "a grain of sand" is possible.
Chris Mason
[1] Living in a francophone environment, I have to accept that my surname is
sometimes spelled incorrectly as "Masson". This also has the effect that it
is mispronounced, that is, with a short "a" rather than a long "a". However,
semantically, it is correct. I'm told it is a variation of macon, with a
cedilla under the "c", and thus also identifies someone who hews stone. This
sort-of makes it the reverse of my misspelling since - I believe - Polish
uses what I have learned as the Germanic transformation of the initials of a
make of car so that the letter "w" is pronounced as the English "v" ("veh")
and - perhaps also - the letter "v" is pronounced as the English "f"
("fau"). Thus, while this was a misspelling, it was phonetically correct for
the English/American ear - and that is, of course, how/why I made the
mistake.
During one of my short spells in the US, I used to have lunch with a
gentleman surnamed Ostrowsky, the name being, I believe, of Polish origin.
Whenever his colleagues referred to him I had to cringe inwardly at the "ou"
sound in the middle of the name. Having learned a little about Slav language
roots, unfortunately I was acutely aware that it derived from a word which,
from my studies, is written - only because it happens to be possible to
represent it with my Latin keyboard - OCTPOB and pronounced OSTROV. So,
using naive etymology, an "Ostrowsky" is someone from an island in a
Slav-speaking region.
During another stay in an international center in the US - obviously, with
that spelling - one erstwhile colleague used to think it something of a joke
I pronounced Wolfgang, from Austria, as Volfgang. I should learn to be less
accurate I suppose.
[2] Not strictly true as I have explained before but, really, as the song
has it, "too few to mention".
[3] Not always simply initial letters as in XID meaning "eXchange
IDentification".
----- Original Message -----
From: "R.S." <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Newsgroups: bit.listserv.ibm-main
To: <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, June 25, 2007 5:10 PM
Subject: Re: The USS Heresy (was Patents, Copyrights, Profits, Flex and
Hercules)
Chris Mason wrote:
Radoslav
[...]
Incidentally - only because I spell-check my posts - I may as well
"improve" your knowledge by pointing out that it's "Unformatted" with two
"t"s.
[...]
I'm Radoslaw (Radosław in fact) and I don't use spell checker for my
e-mails. 'unformated' was a typo, I'm aware of double 't', alhtough my
English is poor.
3. VTAM Unformated System Services (afaik).
Regrettably your "knowledge" - "afaik" - doesn't appear to extend
sufficiently "far". There is no problem with *VTAM* - aka the *SNA*
component of Communications Server (CS) - USS but there is a possible
ambiguity when the possible use of USS with the *IP* component of CS. See
2.9.4, "Telnet USS table setup", in z/OS Communications Server IP
Configuration Reference Version 1 Release 8, SC31-8776-10, a manual with
which I would have expected you to be familiar.
Fine. You know *ONE* example, when USS means 'VTAM USS' and it can be
confused with 'Unix USS'.
I know much more examples, when use USS as 'Unix USS' with no ambiguity,
that means, everybody who understand technical documentation, also
understand what USS stands for. (and yes, I saw your stats about Unix and
USS, but my conclusion is contrary to yours: USS *is used as Unix System
Services* in IBM doco).
Please do me the courtesy of reading my posts before pontificating. If you
memory needs refreshing, please read through my very recent posts on this
topic. I'll say it again for your benefit fort the umpteenth time, I
challenged the *belief*, not the *usage*.
I read all the posts, including yours. A lot of text. Actually I have other
duties as well, so I did not pay to much attention to each of them. Now I'm
trying to guess your point, but I cannot. I don't understand. In fact, even
in the post I respond to you mentioned a lot of things, including anarchy,
democracy and elections. I must be dumb, because I still don't see any
reason to avoid some acronyms.
Just as example: ETR means Electronic Technical Response and External Time
Reference. Both are allowed by acronyms puritans. Sometimes it makes
confusion. Why USS cannot be used as Unix System Services, since English
language rules don't say acronym cannot be ambigous, and have to be approved
by IBM.
--
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
