Ted > I don't believe it's an OOPS.
In principle, you are correct. As John Eells told us in that post I quoted and I'm sure you will have seen, your misuse is *not* sanctioned by IBM. If IBMers are guilty of your misuse, they are just that, guilty of misuse - but I don't expect they will be docked pay for it! One could say that each of these instances is an "IBM oops". > It's a reuse. It's an *attempted* reuse which will be sat upon whenever I discover a reason so to do. > And, it's not worth all this BS. The stone that got thrown into the pond: <quote> Is anybody else sick of the USS argument? IBM has used the term in many documents. So, I tend to hold that over a few on IBM-MAIN. Terminology evolves. </quote> Chris Mason On Tue, 3 May 2011 03:13:14 +0000, Ted MacNEIL <eamacn...@yahoo.ca> wrote: >>USS was WAY before Unix.....the SNA 3270 days to be exact. So, IBM makes a oops, wouldnt be the first time... > >I don't believe it's an OOPS. >It's a reuse. > >And, it's not worth all this BS. >I shall continue to use USS to relate to z/UNIX. >If that makes me a bad person: tough t*tty said the kitty! >- >Ted MacNEIL ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
