Scott > ... the SNA 3270 days to be exact.
Well, not quite as exact as it might be. SNA devices supporting human end users - as opposed to SNA devices supporting programs - needed some technique for composing the three data elements needed for the SSCP (VTAM) to initiate a session. This applies to all such devices not just 3270 display devices. Some of us still recall a typewriter device, the 3767. Racking my brains for other such devices, I managed to conjure up the fascinating 3770 range and, of course, the 3270 emulation on the 3790 - and was there something similar on some of the (other) "industry" systems of the late 1970's? But that's all 3270 again, so doesn't count! In addition to initiating the session, there is also the possibility to terminate the session, typically for the case where the application is misbehaving. > So, IBM makes a oops, ... There is *no* IBM "oops", there are only IBMers who make "oops" - in unofficial papers and presentations and possibly in pseudo-products such as the so-called "Health-Checker". If you go to http://www-03.ibm.com/systems/z/os/zos/bkserv/zshelves12.html and enter the dread three characters in the z/OS UNIX bookshelf "Search text" box, you will find very few "hits". Each of the ones present is an "oops". Exclusively in the Planning manual, they are down to the "graduate student" on some sort of "work experience" or whoever on whatever who, not knowing how to go about matters formally, got a lot of his or her labels wrong. The very few others are simple mindless "oops". Have you marvelled at how few there are? If the use was correct, the manuals would be suffused with the initials! I posted the official position twice yesterday, once in this thread but I guessed you missed it. If there are still some who imagine we are dealing with an official "oops" here, it's worth posting yet again: <quote> > I still think that IBM should have chosen another acronym for Unix than USS. I believe VTAM USS table is still valid, and still used, so it is confusing to me that IBM should use the same acronym for something that is still in use. We did not chose "USS" as an acronym for z/OS UNIX System Services. It's not on the list of names people are supposed to use, and nobody in IBM should use this abbreviation to mean z/OS UNIX System Services. (Anyone from IBM who thinks differently should contact me so I can tell them why they're wrong.) In reality, herding cats is easier than making absolutely sure that everyone uses the correct full and short names all the time in all contexts, formal and informal, but we keep trying. </quote> http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0907&L=ibm- main&T=0&F=&S=&P=198809 Chris Mason On Mon, 2 May 2011 20:00:06 -0700, Scott Ford <scott_j_f...@yahoo.com> wrote: >USS was WAY before Unix.....the SNA 3270 days to be exact. So, IBM >Ed, USS was WAY before Unix.....the SNA 3270 days to be exact. So, IBM makes a oops, wouldnt be the first time... Scott J Ford ________________________________ From: Ed Gould <ps2...@yahoo.com> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu Sent: Mon, May 2, 2011 6:36:23 PM Subject: Re: USS vs USS Ed: Becareful you will start up another war. I think it is a problem that IBM can decide and clarify quite nicely. IBM should IMO do a 360 and say USS means unformatted system services. My rather poor memory says unformatted was in use before Unix came into general use. FWIW the UNIX people are usurping the acronym and are playing the elephant in the room here. Ed ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
