Charles wrote: >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. ? Limiting how? If you mean "z/OS and predecessors", that's always worked for me. Yes, MVS is a component of z/OS, as is USS. (Hey, let's debate "USS" again-no, wait, let's not.) >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." Same approach: "IBM Z and predecessors". Skip Robinson wrote: >Having wrestled with this issue for decades, I've come to adopt Mainframe >as a generic term that most people recognize. (Ignoring the technowienies >that debate the term endlessly.) No one argues with the term or even >questions it. It covers hardware and software. You can use other terms if >you need to get more specific. That assumes z/OS is the only mainframe OS, which it certainly isn't. An imprecision that leads to confusion-only z/OS folks think it's appropriate, nobody else does. Plus I keep finding folks who think a CDC system or even an IBM i is a "mainframe". Nope, I strongly believe in using the correct term, "IBM Z", for the hardware; "z/OS" (or "z/VM", "z/VSE", "z/TPF", "Linux for IBM Z") for the OS in question (plus maybe whatever's left of MUMPS these days, if anything, and a few others, but they're pretty well all dead, other than the Fujitsu mutant z/OS thing). And of course most people don't come close to getting this right: how often do you still hear "AS/400", a platform that's been dead for over two decades AND whose descendants have been renamed repeatedly to boot (iSeries, System i, now IBM i). Or "PowerPC" for Power. I keep explaining to people that that's like calling your Core i9 laptop a "386": sorta kinda vaguely reminiscent of being, but mostly just wrong. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to [email protected] with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
