Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Mark Let's take a for instance: checking through last month's posts in the archive in order to see if I had covered all relevant ones - and this isn't the only USS thread in which I am currently participating - I came across something guaranteed to get my goat. If the topic is the correct USS as opposed to the false USS, I and a few others maybe, may be interested, otherwise I in particular am not. I noticed that some joker - I'll withhold his name to spare his blushes - actually entitled his thread A few dumb USS questions. I checked because the thread started in June and it's the same joker who showed up on July 1st. All I can say is he said it first! Since I checked on the last flare-up because I misunderstood Steve Thompson's contribution I discovered the following: when everyone knows exactly what it means from a post labelled On Tue, 5 Jun 2007 08:21:35 -0500, Mark Zelden. Well, they don't, do they? Chris Mason On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 08:10:04 -0500, Mark Zelden mark.zel...@zurichna.com wrote: Why can't uss all get along? :-) -- Mark Zelden -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Steve Sorry about the delay. You've been owed an apology for a long time. It's just I processed the thread without the was first - and other matters came along. I got round finally to the archive search you suggested and discovered your contributions to this topic the last time (?) it flared up in June 2007. So I apologise for not appreciating you are on the side of for correct use[1] as opposed to for incorrect use. It's just I prefer your complete sentences over your cryptic references! So, to the reasons about which I have protested already, namely 1. USS is ambiguous when TELNET, possibly TN3270, is under discussion 2. USS can be mistaken as *only* meaning UNIX System Services you added, back in June 2007, 3. The risk for a maintenance query to be misrouted when USS is misused as a keyword I would have thought that, for those who specifically don't care about the other two - and I can name at least one with explicit written evidence - this last consideration should be compelling - but there's no accounting for bigotry. Incidentally, apropos of your interesting post of Wed, 6 Jun 2007 17:47:51 - 0400, I have always assumed that the so popular expression whatever - which is I believe what you meant as the disappearing distinction between IBM and the rest when it comes to product quality - is one word rather than two. I always equate it to a particularly expression associated with those closely associated with the Mediterranean which involves the following simultaneously: a. a slight raising of the shoulders b. a slight jutting of the chin c. an exhalation in the form of what linguists call a plosive usually written as Eh! Chris Mason [1] And having (re)read (very probably) the whole of that interesting post I can now rephrase that to on the side of the angels! On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:33 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: Deep breath you need. Archive search you might. The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. Regards, Steve Thompson -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking) How ridiculous to propose that this is some sort of competition! And if it was so to be presented, the VTAM component would win by about two decades. Given that Howard Rifkind, supported by Jim Horne and Bruno Sugliani, jumped immediately to the incorrect interpretation of USS, that Ivan Warren denied the correct interpretation of USS and that Mary Anne Matyaz felt she had to apologise for the correct interpretation of USS, correct use of USS is a matter of *respect* for fellow list users. This unnecessary misunderstanding, compounded by denial and apology, has demonstrated that insistence on the correct use of USS is far from pedantry. What further nonsense is meant by last laugh and interesting picture I have no idea - perhaps the writer didn't checking the wind direction ... Perhaps considering listiquette before posting is to be recommended. As long as I am attacked on this point, I will repel with equal vigour. Chris Mason On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:33:15 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:19 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Mainframe hacking SNIPPAGE The interpretation Howard, Jim and Bruno arrived at is, of course, total nonsense, caused solely because this persistent misuse of an abbreviation for UNIX System Services. So much so that USS can even be denied its proper interpretation!!! Chris Mason SNIPPAGE Unix System Services vs. VTAM and USS. Pedantic. Last laugh. Interesting picture here. Regards, Steve Thompson -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Ted Even IBM used USS ... Sadly, some IBMers are as careless as some list participants. ... unless the context is confusing ... As the Howard Rifkind, Ivan Warren and Mary Anne Matyaz cases illustrate, simply the use can confuse. Chris Mason On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 14:12:42 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: If acronyms were patentable, IBM could sue itself for infringement. :-) Even IBM used USS (internally externally) for both. At least, IBM Canada did. I shall continue to do so, unless the context is confusing, on this list. Since my network skills are minimal, USS will usually refer to OMVS. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Pat I followed up on Steve's archived posts from the last time this topic flared up. It's clear I misunderstood his short phrases. Incidentally that point 3, misrouting, comes from a response to a post of yours! - It's clear what I should have done is to enclose USS in quotation marks. It has recently been pointed out to me indirectly - and, as far as I can see, mistakenly - that one can distinguish between use and mention for a word by using quotation marks in the latter case.[1] You have taken the use sense. IBMTEST puts me in mind of the first project I performed as, supposedly[2], a networking specialist - back around December 1969-January 1970.[3][4] The project was to create a tool for Customer Engineers (CEs), known in other parts of the world as Field Engineers (FEs). The tool relied on an anticipated structure for BTAM-based applications. It was expected that each typically start-stop line was driven from an event detected in a multiple- wait list. The tool had a component in the supervisor which redirected an interrupt away from normal processing into the hands of the tool program, so- called On-Line Diagnostics (OLD). The only diagnostic routine I recall that the CE could cause to happen on the line was to write characters to the printer component, typically the old Selectric, golf ball, mechanism. I have always regarded the USS IBMTEST function as some residual echo of the OLD project. In other words, if you ever need to explain for what reason it's there, you can say it's to make sure the golf ball printer mechanism works properly. It shames me to have to say I can't actually recall whether the early SNA devices, the 3767 and 3770 series for example, actually had golf ball printers. Chris Mason [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Use-mention [2] When some colleagues on the basic networking course returned home their mail contained a card explaining that I, among others less fraudulently mentioned, was their regional networking specialist! [3] I remember working in an overcoat while pouring over listings in an as yet unheated new office building. It closed as an IBM building a couple of years ago! [4] If the term Selsdon Man means anything to you, read on. This will apply to UK readers only. Because this project involved working overnight, this being when the production machine was converted to a sandpit, I was sleeping in a nearby hotel during the day. Because of the time of day I parked my car, I got the best spot alongside the doorsteps to the main door into the hotel. Because the Conservative Party event was newsworthy and, when TV journalists can't actually be in on an event they seem to think it assists their reporting if they are as near as they can be, my car figured prominently in one of the BBC news reports of the meeting. The film of that report seems to be the stock clip for whenever Selsdon Man is discussed in BBC TV programs. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selsdon_Group Perhaps I should add a footnote to the Wiki article in order to explain what Harold Wilson might have had in mind when he coined the term Selsdon man. It's suggested in the following phrase from another article[5]: with its allusion to some kind of Palaeolithic discovery. What that phrase manages to leave out is surely something that Wilson intended to be appreciated which is that the supposed Piltdown Man discovery was a deliberate fake! [5] http://everything2.com/?node_id=1811867 See also http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Harold_Wilson Incidentally, working third shift I must have had a lot of time on my hands since I found time to enhance the OLD installation macros to include a sort of the line addresses to be intercepted. On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe patrick.oke...@wamu.net wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:33 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: ... The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. ... I admit I could not tell who got the last laugh and who or what was being laughed at, but suspected I might be in the laughed at catagory. I guess Chris felt that a bit more strongly than I did. I think we were both wrong. And to show how deeply entrenched I am in the old (real :-) ) def of USS, when I saw the subject I thought, Oh oh. I misused USS once. I replaced the default IBMTEST with something that displayed a whole buch of diagnostic stuff. And if nobody but Chris understands what I just said, well, that's fine. Pat O'Keefe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Mark If you enter IBMTEST when the SNA LU is in the SSCP-LU - as opposed to the LU-LU state - and the LU is supported by Unformatted System Services (USS), the SSCP (VTAM) will echo back to you whatever you have specified as the second positional operand the number of times you specify as the first positional operand on the IBMTEST command. According to the manual, the defaults are the string you posted and 10 respectively. However, if you write your own USS module, you can change the defaults to whatever seems sensible. Perhaps your version has changed the count default to 1, which is perhaps a bit more sensible than IBM's 10. Perhaps Pat made some change that seemed sensible until he tested it! I expect this should work as well for the Communications Server TN3270 server program as for an SNA session not concatenated to a TN3270 connection but I've not tested it. Was that the environment you were testing? If you've read my response to Pat, you'll know that my guess for the rationale for the USS IBMTEST command is rooted in the technology of the late '60s. Chris Mason On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:10:05 -0500, Mark Zelden mark.zel...@zurichna.com wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe patrick.oke...@wamu.net wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:33 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: ... The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. ... I admit I could not tell who got the last laugh and who or what was being laughed at, but suspected I might be in the laughed at catagory. I guess Chris felt that a bit more strongly than I did. I think we were both wrong. And to show how deeply entrenched I am in the old (real :-) ) def of USS, when I saw the subject I thought, Oh oh. I misused USS once. I replaced the default IBMTEST with something that displayed a whole buch of diagnostic stuff. And if nobody but Chris understands what I just said, well, that's fine. Pat O'Keefe I have no idea what you are talking about. Regards, IBMECHO ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Ken Unless I've misunderstood, I would not expect the early Monday morning terminal user to much bothered by the IBMTEST command. It's one of those things to which the famous phrase attributed to Michael Caine by Peter Sellers, Not a lot of people know that!, applies. Chris Mason On Tue, 28 Jul 2009 08:09:01 -0400, Klein, Kenneth kenneth.kl...@kyfb.com wrote: I understand, Pat. You probably got a lot of confused callers when you came in Monday morning. Ken Klein Sr. Systems Programmer Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance - Louisville kenneth.kl...@kyfb.com 502-495-5000 x7011 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking) On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe patrick.oke...@wamu.net wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:33 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: ... The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. ... I admit I could not tell who got the last laugh and who or what was being laughed at, but suspected I might be in the laughed at catagory. I guess Chris felt that a bit more strongly than I did. I think we were both wrong. And to show how deeply entrenched I am in the old (real :-) ) def of USS, when I saw the subject I thought, Oh oh. I misused USS once. I replaced the default IBMTEST with something that displayed a whole buch of diagnostic stuff. And if nobody but Chris understands what I just said, well, that's fine. Pat O'Keefe I have no idea what you are talking about. Regards, IBMECHO ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Ted Even IBM used USS ... Sadly, some IBMers are as careless as some list participants. I DON'T think it's carelessness!n - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
-Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Ted MacNEIL Sent: Friday, August 07, 2009 4:12 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking) Ted Even IBM used USS ... Sadly, some IBMers are as careless as some list participants. I DON'T think it's carelessness!n - Too busy driving to stop for gas! SNIPPAGE It either is, or they are at best, not competent (here is where I have to explain this: Not competent does not imply you can't be only that you need some training, Incompetent means you may have been but now definitely aren't). It is also a problem that some time after 1991, the IBM internal standards were apparently discarded (apparently with management blessing). There were specific naming standards, specific requirements for program directories (and their very specific formatting), etc. Even the keywords to be used for ETR/PMR and APAR/PTF are being sluffed, which is making it difficult to find HIPERs at times. A recent example: any one *directly* affected by the recent double writes within TCPIP. If you had searched using INCORROUT you came up empty. Yet that is what was happening - In Correct Output. This is but one formerly STANDARD keyword. The rules are changing w/o equivalent buy in or announcement of the changes. Rather like the non-mainframe platforms, the Whatever boxen (example of the Whatever is given by Shania Twain in That Don't Impress me). Regards, Steve Thompson -- Opinions expressed by this poster may not reflect those of poster's employer -- -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Ted I suspect you don't think it's carelessness because some IBMers - and some list participants - imagine they are entitled to misuse USS for UNIX System Services. That - as the reason this whole (set of) threads got started demonstrates - betrays another type of carelessness, the type indeed that gave rise to the unnecessary comment in the post with dateline Wed, 15 Jul 2009 22:33:38 -0700 and which set the mood. Chris Mason On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 21:12:03 +, Ted MacNEIL eamacn...@yahoo.ca wrote: Ted Even IBM used USS ... Sadly, some IBMers are as careless as some list participants. I DON'T think it's carelessness! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 17:26:54 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: ... It is also a problem that some time after 1991, the IBM internal standards were apparently discarded (apparently with management blessing). There were specific naming standards, specific requirements for program directories (and their very specific formatting), etc. ... I'm afraid you are right. There was a time when unexpected behavior could be flagged INCORROUT and a design could be just as defective as code. (I don't know if that was ever an official policy, but it seemed to be the way Service worked.) But that was back when IBM had people around to fix problems. A lot of those people have retired, moved to other positions, become suits, etc. In the past I've argued myself blue in the face of Broken as Designed issues. (Not problems. Just ask IBM. Can't be a problem if it's working as designed.) But now that all the development, change, and level 2 support teams have evaporated, and now that my technical relationships with some of those left have been replaced by friendships, I tend to take less strident tone. Submit a Requirement. No, you shouldn't have to, but the lone developer where there used to be 10 is going to be working on high priority changes (when he's not stolen by Service to work on a Sev 1 bug). Even if you get them to accept a PMR it's going to a Sev 3; your grand children may see the PTF. So submit a Requirement for it. (I'm a lot more comfortable saying that now that I'm no longer the Requirements Coordinator for SHARE's Networking program.) Pat O'Keefe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
On Fri, 7 Aug 2009 16:08:39 -0500, Chris Mason chrisma...@belgacom.net wrote: Mark If you enter IBMTEST when the SNA LU is in the SSCP-LU - as opposed to the LU-LU state - and the LU is supported by Unformatted System Services (USS), the SSCP (VTAM) will echo back to you whatever you have specified as the second positional operand the number of times you specify as the first positional operand on the IBMTEST command. snip Really? big snip, including some stuff about IBMTEST from Pat And if nobody but Chris understands what I just said, well, that's fine. Pat O'Keefe I have no idea what you are talking about. Regards, IBMECHO ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789 It was a joke! Of course I knew exactly what Pat was talking about otherwise why would I written my regards the way I did. I guess I could have used a smiley face but I thought it was obvious to anyone who did understand. sigh BTW, when I wrote why can't uss all get along in the other thread (or was it part of this one), that was a joke too. But I did include the smiley face with that post. Mark -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
I understand, Pat. You probably got a lot of confused callers when you came in Monday morning. Ken Klein Sr. Systems Programmer Kentucky Farm Bureau Insurance - Louisville kenneth.kl...@kyfb.com 502-495-5000 x7011 -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Mark Zelden Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:10 PM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking) On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe patrick.oke...@wamu.net wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:33 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: ... The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. ... I admit I could not tell who got the last laugh and who or what was being laughed at, but suspected I might be in the laughed at catagory. I guess Chris felt that a bit more strongly than I did. I think we were both wrong. And to show how deeply entrenched I am in the old (real :-) ) def of USS, when I saw the subject I thought, Oh oh. I misused USS once. I replaced the default IBMTEST with something that displayed a whole buch of diagnostic stuff. And if nobody but Chris understands what I just said, well, that's fine. Pat O'Keefe I have no idea what you are talking about. Regards, IBMECHO ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
How ridiculous to propose that this is some sort of competition! And if it was so to be presented, the VTAM component would win by about two decades. Given that Howard Rifkind, supported by Jim Horne and Bruno Sugliani, jumped immediately to the incorrect interpretation of USS, that Ivan Warren denied the correct interpretation of USS and that Mary Anne Matyaz felt she had to apologise for the correct interpretation of USS, correct use of USS is a matter of *respect* for fellow list users. This unnecessary misunderstanding, compounded by denial and apology, has demonstrated that insistence on the correct use of USS is far from pedantry. What further nonsense is meant by last laugh and interesting picture I have no idea - perhaps the writer didn't checking the wind direction ... Perhaps considering listiquette before posting is to be recommended. As long as I am attacked on this point, I will repel with equal vigour. Chris Mason On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:33:15 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:19 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Mainframe hacking SNIPPAGE The interpretation Howard, Jim and Bruno arrived at is, of course, total nonsense, caused solely because this persistent misuse of an abbreviation for UNIX System Services. So much so that USS can even be denied its proper interpretation!!! Chris Mason SNIPPAGE Unix System Services vs. VTAM and USS. Pedantic. Last laugh. Interesting picture here. Regards, Steve Thompson -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Why can't uss all get along? :-) -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
If acronyms were patentable, IBM could sue itself for infringement. :-) On Mon, Jul 27, 2009 at 9:10 AM, Mark Zeldenmark.zel...@zurichna.com wrote: Why can't uss all get along? :-) -- Mark Zelden Sr. Software and Systems Architect - z/OS Team Lead Zurich North America / Farmers Insurance Group - ZFUS G-ITO mailto:mark.zel...@zurichna.com z/OS Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ Mark's MVS Utilities: http://home.flash.net/~mzelden/mvsutil.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
Deep breath you need. Archive search you might. The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. Regards, Steve Thompson -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Monday, July 27, 2009 4:51 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking) How ridiculous to propose that this is some sort of competition! And if it was so to be presented, the VTAM component would win by about two decades. Given that Howard Rifkind, supported by Jim Horne and Bruno Sugliani, jumped immediately to the incorrect interpretation of USS, that Ivan Warren denied the correct interpretation of USS and that Mary Anne Matyaz felt she had to apologise for the correct interpretation of USS, correct use of USS is a matter of *respect* for fellow list users. This unnecessary misunderstanding, compounded by denial and apology, has demonstrated that insistence on the correct use of USS is far from pedantry. What further nonsense is meant by last laugh and interesting picture I have no idea - perhaps the writer didn't checking the wind direction ... Perhaps considering listiquette before posting is to be recommended. As long as I am attacked on this point, I will repel with equal vigour. Chris Mason On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 14:33:15 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: -Original Message- From: IBM Mainframe Discussion List [mailto:ibm-m...@bama.ua.edu] On Behalf Of Chris Mason Sent: Tuesday, July 21, 2009 11:19 AM To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Subject: Re: Mainframe hacking SNIPPAGE The interpretation Howard, Jim and Bruno arrived at is, of course, total nonsense, caused solely because this persistent misuse of an abbreviation for UNIX System Services. So much so that USS can even be denied its proper interpretation!!! Chris Mason SNIPPAGE Unix System Services vs. VTAM and USS. Pedantic. Last laugh. Interesting picture here. Regards, Steve Thompson -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
In a message dated 7/27/2009 8:12:55 A.M. Central Daylight Time, mark.zel...@zurichna.com writes: Why can't uss all get along? :-) It'd be an interesting SHARE presentation on lineage. When OE came out in 4.3 Harry Williams started the MVS-OE(still trucking) list at Marist after passing it by Pooperman on this list as to whether a separate list was required. IBM didn't help as the next iteration became Unix System Services and for the longest used USS in their sig lines at SHARE and the OE list. Maybe it was the downsizing or something, but IBM does have an acronym checker and most groups are required to filter new buzzwords thru it. I can't remember his name but the XCF guy said it was the group's 34th choice. So we got a little confusion they've got separate FMIDs. Beside my daddy can whip your daddy with one had tied behind his backchildren! **An Excellent Credit Score is 750. See Yours in Just 2 Easy Steps! (http://pr.atwola.com/promoclk/100126575x1221823322x1201398723/aol?redir=http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=668072hmpgID=62bcd=Jul yExcfooterNO62) -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
If acronyms were patentable, IBM could sue itself for infringement. :-) Even IBM used USS (internally externally) for both. At least, IBM Canada did. I shall continue to do so, unless the context is confusing, on this list. Since my network skills are minimal, USS will usually refer to OMVS. - Too busy driving to stop for gas! -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:33 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: ... The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. ... I admit I could not tell who got the last laugh and who or what was being laughed at, but suspected I might be in the laughed at catagory. I guess Chris felt that a bit more strongly than I did. I think we were both wrong. And to show how deeply entrenched I am in the old (real :-) ) def of USS, when I saw the subject I thought, Oh oh. I misused USS once. I replaced the default IBMTEST with something that displayed a whole buch of diagnostic stuff. And if nobody but Chris understands what I just said, well, that's fine. Pat O'Keefe -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
Re: USS misuse (was Re: Mainframe hacking)
On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 15:03:34 -0500, Patrick O'Keefe patrick.oke...@wamu.net wrote: On Mon, 27 Jul 2009 09:26:33 -0400, Thompson, Steve steve_thomp...@stercomm.com wrote: ... The picture and last laugh came from one who had been rebuffed for pointing out the confusion caused by using USS instead of OE or OMVS, or some such. ... I admit I could not tell who got the last laugh and who or what was being laughed at, but suspected I might be in the laughed at catagory. I guess Chris felt that a bit more strongly than I did. I think we were both wrong. And to show how deeply entrenched I am in the old (real :-) ) def of USS, when I saw the subject I thought, Oh oh. I misused USS once. I replaced the default IBMTEST with something that displayed a whole buch of diagnostic stuff. And if nobody but Chris understands what I just said, well, that's fine. Pat O'Keefe I have no idea what you are talking about. Regards, IBMECHO ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ0123456789 -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
