Since they have AIX on Power, how about zIX or MIX. One concern I have is an operating system name without z/OS implies a completely independent operating system, not a subsystem of z/OS.
On Mon, Mar 26, 2012 at 9:34 PM, J R <jayare...@hotmail.com> wrote: > I agree, why not zUnix? Or z/Unix? > > However, since Lynn Wheeler has reminded us that z/OS Unix is (to some > degree) POSIX compliant/compatible, why not adopt a catchy contraction of > "POSIX"? > > I'd like to suggest z/POX, which also connotes the blight it has become on > z/OS. ;-) ... > > Date: Mon, 26 Mar 2012 10:16:32 -0700 >> From: dickbond...@gmail.com >> Subject: Re: A z/OS Redbook Corrected - just about! >> To: IBM-MAIN@bama.ua.edu >> >> 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? >> > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, > send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN -- Mike A Schwab, Springfield IL USA Where do Forest Rangers go to get away from it all? ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
