John Gilmore wrote: Just my little comments, if you don't mind please.
>I can think of few drearier or more gratuitous tasks than "going through all >of the manuals" to change instances of 'load module' to instances of 'load >module or program object'. What would you say about 'load module' when they are run from Unix / Linux environment? 'Executable'? 'Binaries'? Other? I agree it is a 'Muddy World'... >This community is full of instinctually risk averse, conservative people who >cherish and defend the old and are reluctant to master new technology, often >long after it has ceased to be at all new. This propensity is stubborn and >hard to change, but it should be discouraged where it can be, and terminology >that obliterates substantive distinctions is not helpful in doing so. Agreed! Some of the reasons of this 'stubborness' are: Difficult migration to new technology (hardware, software, etc), Backward compatibility, Costs, Politics, Unavailability of training, etc. About terminology: how do you explain the term 'IPL' to people who only understand 'boot', 'bootstrap', 'reboot', etc? >Portmanteau words like 'alphanumeric' are often useful. Only if the intended readers understand them, otherwise you're back to square one... Groete / Greetings Elardus Engelbrecht ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@listserv.ua.edu with the message: INFO IBM-MAIN
