Don > It seems to me that the big argument here is that once an acronym is used for one thing it may never, ever be used for any other purpose else mass confusion will result, ...
Not "will result" but rather "has resulted". If there was a time where one use was appropriate which has disappeared to be followed - at a decent interval for all to reset their memories - by a new use, what you said would be relevant. But there wasn't, so it isn't! > ... can anybody please provide a practical example of how the old USS and the new USS could possibly be used alone or together where the meaning could not be correctly derived from context? I posted one yesterday. It would be soooo helpful if people just read up on the topic before jumping in! Admittedly the water was muddied by this being a fresh thread without any obvious connection to "An unnecessary controversy (Was: Ported tools for z/OS on ADCD)". We'll just have to put that down to poor "list-craft" on the part of the person starting the fresh thread if you were not following the earlier thread. I'll repeat it again to save you the trouble of searching the archives: <piece of a post from yesterday> This pair of posts dates from July 2009. The subject was "Mainframe hacking". A lady was telling a story of a "hack" which included the following two sentences: <quote> I had one once, circa 1992-1993. ... Someone got the uss screen, was able to get into the production CICS, and the CECI command was not protected, so they were able to shut the CICS down. </quote> A gentleman responded: <quote> Interesting, I didn't think that back in '93 MVS 4.3 had a USS piece. </quote> See http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0907&L=ibm- main&D=0&T=0&P=131204 and http://alabamamaps.ua.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0907&L=ibm- main&D=0&T=0&P=132279 </piece of a post from yesterday> This isn't actually the main area where ambiguity is possible, it's just a consequence of the general misuse. The main problem is in the area of z/OS Communications Server TELNET which can be used to access UNIX System Services - OTELNETD - or can be used to access 3270 data stream applications - TN3270. In the former case - once logged on - we have UNIX System Services commands and messages. In the latter case - for the purposes of logging on - we have Unformatted System Services commands and messages. Of particular irritation even if the full post reveals the context well enough - although it need not - is the matter of the Subject line. As you can very easilty imagine from what I explained above, it would be very easy for a subscriber, typically one relatively new to z/OS, having only these awful examples to guide him or her, to come up with a Subject line such as the following: "Why doesn't my <dread three letters> command work?" - Ambiguous enough for you? "Can anyone explain this <dread three letters> message I'm getting" - Ditto? The other example I gave to Dave Gibney could easily have been an individual post with the title: "Where does the <dread three letters> executable come from?" - Ditto? Either those expecting a question about UNIX System Services or those expecting a question about Unformatted System Services are going to get riled - and riling in the revered IBM-MAIN list is surely not to be encouraged! It is the latter, the Communications Server components, which rightly claims the dread initials since this particular usage has been around since the mid- 70s and is enshrined in the relevant IBM web site - again a repeat from the other thread but this time rather than just give the reference I'll quote the entries: <quote> unformatted system service (USS) A communications function that translates a character-coded command, such as a LOGON or LOGOFF command, into a field-formatted command for processing by formatted system services. See also formatted system service. ... USS See unformatted system service. </quote> http://www-01.ibm.com/software/globalization/terminology/u.html#x2042481 UNIX System Services is just this week's name when last week it was OpenEdition or OpenMVS or some such. Either way, it is very much a johnny- come-lately which is probably the attraction for these dedicated followers of fashion. > If not ... But actually so. > ... then might I suggest to all that this topic has about run it's course? Not until the recalcitrants and recusants - and they know who they are - are purged. This topic will continue to have healthy legs! > ... I believe the United States Navy was using USS long before IBM ever got into the game. We have a regular contributor who takes an interest in at least one - the original one - of these uses. He takes care to inform us he is retired from the navy. I don't believe he has any difficulty understanding that, when posting in IBM-MAIN or IBMTCP-L, he will not ever be dealing with an United States Ship! Chris Mason On Tue, 3 May 2011 04:29:45 +0000, Grinsell, Don <dgrins...@mt.gov> wrote: >Language is evolutionary. Acronyms are an extension of language. It seems to me that the big argument here is that once an acronym is used for one thing it may never, ever be used for any other purpose else mass confusion will result, the earth will stop spinning on it's axis and we'll all float off into space. That said, can anybody please provide a practical example of how the old USS and the new USS could possibly be used alone or together where the meaning could not be correctly derived from context? If not then might I suggest to all that this topic has about run it's course? > > If memory serves, I believe the United States Navy was using USS long before IBM ever got into the game. > >Regards, > >Don Grinsell ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 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
