On Tue, 3 May 2011 08:29:53 -0500, Kirk Wolf <k...@dovetail.com> wrote:
<big snip> >To me, "Under USS" is as almost nondescript as saying "Under TSO" to >refer to: TN3270+ISPF or IKJEFT01 in batch or a TSO/REXX exec. I >believe that some people have a conception model of z/OS Unix that is >similar to the old OS/2 Windows so called "Penalty Box". Again, I >believe that the TSO OMVS command and BPXBATCH have fostered this >incorrect notion. > Nice post. This is close... "Under z/OS Unix" / "Under USS" is good enough granularity to describe all the crap that they can't stand. " But without the last part as I don't think everyone who uses that terminology dislikes z/OS Unix. But I think your last part I quoted is probably closer. People don't say "under USS" when they use FTP or Telnet for example, so I think it referrers more to interactive or batch execution of processes - other than those that didn't used to required z/OS unix (like FTP and Telnet). Mark -- Mark Zelden - Zelden Consulting Services - z/OS, OS/390 and MVS mailto:m...@mzelden.com Mark's MVS Utilities: http://www.mzelden.com/mvsutil.html Systems Programming expert at http://expertanswercenter.techtarget.com/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
