Dick Bond wrote: > I agree with Chris Mason. IBM should have never started called it USS - >how about a simple definitive abbreviation, like "zUnix". IBM adores >putting a "z" in front of everything (for some clueless reason) so why >should their version of Unix be any different?
That'd be "branding". Not clueless; indicates that it's the System z version of something. Seems pretty clear and simple to me. And it'd be "z/Unix" if it were done that way, because it's software. Hardware: no slash (z900, z990, z9, zEnterprise); software: slash (z/OS, z/VM, z/VSE, z/Architecture - yes, the architecture is software, go figure). But yeah, it's confusing. IBM should have a TLA Czar, and an ETLA Czar (obviously different people for no apparent reason!) who must rule on all such acronyms. Yes, I'm kidding about the last... -- ...phsiii Phil Smith III p...@voltage.com<mailto:p...@voltage.com> Voltage Security, Inc. www.voltage.com<http://www.voltage.com> (703) 476-4511 (home office) (703) 568-6662 (cell) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
