Agreed. Saying MVS makes you look old-fashioned, even though MVS still exists (I guess?) as a component of z/OS. Saying z/OS is limiting.
Ditto for the hardware. It is a little wordy to say "I have been writing assembler for the S/360, S370, S/390 and z." (And I guess now Telum?) Does that name lead to a who's on first dialog? "What's that new IBM chip called?" "Telum" "I'd like to tell 'em, but I don't know what it's called." "Telum" "Tell 'em what?" "The name of the chip." "I don't know the name of the chip." "Telum" Charles -----Original Message----- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paul Gilmartin Sent: Sunday, October 3, 2021 10:50 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: PL/I vs. JCL On Sun, 3 Oct 2021 06:58:42 -0700, Charles Mills wrote: > >I once had an all-out war (I won! I was the president!) with a tech writer who >insisted that the documentation should spell out Multiple Virtual Systems on >the first reference to MVS (in technical documentation for a hardcore >mainframe product). My position was that it made us look like idiots. > BTW, is there a convenient term embracing the line of OSes, OS/360, MVT, OS/390, z/OS, and all those others? I don't like to say "MVS" when I wish to include the pre-virtual systems, and I don't like to say "OS/360" when I wish to include z/OS. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
