Is the use of the term "emulator" to describe RunUO really accurate?

[xlinux]

Is the use of the term "emulator" to describe RunUO really accurate?

I've wondered this for a while now and I think it is worthy of discussion. RunUO is quite often referred to as an emulator; even Wikipedia vaguely describes it as such.

But what is RunUO really? RunUO is merely a reimplementation of the UO server software. This fits a liberal definition of the word emulator; which states that for software to be an emulator it must merely mimic the function of other software. However, RunUO does not appear to fit the technical computer science definition of the word.

Strictly speaking, a software emulator must allow a computer program "to run on a platform (computer architecture and/or operating system) other than the one for which [it was] originally written." The UO server software owned by EA is not being emulated. It has been completely rewritten from scratch through a process of reverse engineering packets sent and received by the client. It is a completely new piece of software with no ties to the original code base, yet allows existing clients to connect.

This is less analogous to common, true emulators and more analogous to things commonly mistaken for emulators, such as WINE. WINE removing a client win32 application's dependency on Microsoft's GUI libraries is analogous to RunUO removing the game client application's dependency on EA's game servers.

Perhaps the closest analogy is that to Samba. With Samba, a Windows file sharing server can be set up on any operating system anywhere without needing a new client. Samba is not considered an emulator, but like RunUO it is a free software reimplementation of proprietary server software with which the proprietary client is compatible. If the many projects like Samba which are clearly in the same class as RunUO (reimplementation of a server serving the same legacy client) are not considered emulators, why are all reimplementations of the UO servers (even those other than RunUO) considered emulators?

This makes no logical sense to me.

Thanks for reading.

 

[WarAngel]

It has nothing to do with the actual computer science definition of an emulator. It's called an emulator because it emulates what the EA servers allow a person with a UO client to do: connect and play.

 

[xlinux]

That is entirely the problem; there is a distinct lack of accuracy. By that logic, the Linux kernel emulates the UNIX kernel, Samba emulates Windows file sharing, and WINE emulates the Windows API. None of which is true.

 

[WarAngel]

You miss the point. It doesn't matter what it's called. Some people still call RunUO a "shard." Just call it what you want; it seriously shouldn't make you lose sleep or anything.

 

[Fresshness]

My thoughts:

at the time of the first appearances of the UO emulators (let's stick to this definition for now), it was unknown how Origin/EA would react to such software.

I think it's somewhat of a protection that the creators of such software called it an emulator. Just to prevent the direct or indirect implication of reverse-engineering.

anyhoo, just IMHO

PS: I tend to dislike language-purism when not in light of really important issues (like the agreement on the definition of 'terrorism', that's a more worthy discussion if y'ask me ;p).

 

[xlinux]

You miss the point. It doesn't matter what it's called. Some people still call RunUO a "shard." Just call it what you want; it seriously shouldn't make you lose sleep or anything.

Nobody of consequence calls RunUO a "shard." However, in the RunUO About page the RunUO authors refer to their software deliberately as an emulator. As do other authors of UO server implementations.

What bothers me about it is how widely accepted this incorrect use of the word has become. It seems years ago somebody used the word emulation incorrectly when s/he coined the phrase "shard emulation" and people have just continued to use the incorrectly coined phrase ever since. In essense, people use this term because everyone else uses this term regardless of the fact that it's incorrect.

My thoughts:

at the time of the first appearances of the UO emulators (let's stick to this definition for now), it was unknown how Origin/EA would react to such software.

I think it's somewhat of a protection that the creators of such software called it an emulator. Just to prevent the direct or indirect implication of reverse-engineering.

That doesn't really make any sense. In order to write a true emulator, you almost always need to engage in some sort of reverse engineering. So how does using the term "emulator" hide the fact that UO server implementations were built by a process of reverse engineering? Furthermore, there is nothing illegal about reverse engineering in the first place. That whole rationalization is silly.

 

[WarAngel]

Okay, here's a new point. Nobody besides yourself really cares. Why do you care so much about something so trivial? It's a word that can apparently mean different things depending on who you are. If you want to call RunUO a "reimplementation of the UO server software," every time you want to mention it, feel free. I'm going to stick with emulator, and I can guarentee that almost everyone else will as well.

 

[Joeku]

I thought it was interesting to look into...
WarAngel, just because you don't care, doesn't mean that everyone doesn't care.

 

[XuriDabur]

From Dictionary.com:

em·u·late P Pronunciation Key (my-lt)
tr.v. em·u·lat·ed, em·u·lat·ing, em·u·lates
-To strive to equal or excel, especially through imitation: an older pupil whose accomplishments and style I emulated.
-To compete with successfully; approach or attain equality with.
-Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.

By all those definitions, RunUO (and to some extent, other similar programs) is an emulator. While being well aware that <RND %> of all statistics on the Internet are made up on the spot, I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of the features of RunUO are emulating their EA-UO counterparts.

It may have other features in addition, and it may be possible for you to customize it all so it no longer emulates any features, but by default - RunUO (and the other programs like it) are UO server emulators, no matter if they're refered to as "server software" or "shard emulators".

 

[Ryan]

RunUO is not an emulator.

We do nto emulate OSI's server architecture. We built our own. We handle the same loads OSI needs 20 servers to handle on one server.

We apply a game layer to our software that does follow the features of OSI but we've far exceeded what OSI has done.

In that aspect we are not an emulator. The game layer itself is a replica yes, but RunUO as a whole is not an emulator.

 

[xlinux]

RunUO is not an emulator.

We do nto emulate OSI's server architecture. We built our own. We handle the same loads OSI needs 20 servers to handle on one server.

We apply a game layer to our software that does follow the features of OSI but we've far exceeded what OSI has done.

In that aspect we are not an emulator. The game layer itself is a replica yes, but RunUO as a whole is not an emulator.

Thanks Ryan, though I'm still quite puzzled. Both Wikipedia and RunUO.com refer to RunUO (and other reimplementations of the UO server) erroneously as an emulator. Why?

From Dictionary.com:

By all those definitions, RunUO (and to some extent, other similar programs) is an emulator. While being well aware that <RND %> of all statistics on the Internet are made up on the spot, I'll go out on a limb and say that 90% of the features of RunUO are emulating their EA-UO counterparts.

It may have other features in addition, and it may be possible for you to customize it all so it no longer emulates any features, but by default - RunUO (and the other programs like it) are UO server emulators, no matter if they're refered to as "server software" or "shard emulators".

I referenced that exact definition from that exact website in my opening post. Said I:

This fits a liberal definition of the word emulator; which states that for software to be an emulator it must merely mimic the function of other software. However, RunUO does not appear to fit the technical computer science definition of the word.

 

[XuriDabur]

I referenced that exact definition from that exact website in my opening post. Said I:

Sorry, missed that link.

 

[WarAngel]

I thought it was interesting to look into...
WarAngel, just because you don't care, doesn't mean that everyone doesn't care.

If you care to the point that you're going to post on some forums to clear up what a word should mean in a specific situation under specific circumstances, then you have an extremely boring and pointless life. No offense to anyone who has an extremely boring and pointless life.

PS: Semantics are useless.

 

[xlinux]

So, trolling a boring and pointless thread that boring and pointless people participate in somehow allows you to rise above the boring pointlessness? Sounds like a double standard to me.

 

[WarAngel]

No, I'm not trolling. I'm giving my opinion on something you brought up. I haven't flamed anyone, nor do I feel that I've really been a jerk. This really is one of the most uselessly-subjected threads I have ever laid eyes on, so I am not just being an ass in saying that.

 

[xlinux]

Strictly speaking, repeatedly complaining about your lack of interest in the topic of a thread is rude. Why don't you take Joeku's implied advice and refrain from participating in a thread that you're so clearly disinterested in?

 

[WarAngel]

Strictly speaking, repeatedly complaining about your lack of interest in the topic of a thread is rude. Why don't you take Joeku's implied advice and refrain from participating in a thread that you're so clearly disinterested in?

Because I still feel like replying. Why don't you keep posting to get me to stop? We have about the same use.

 

[xlinux]

Remember those semantics you don't feel are at all useful? Here's a case where they come in handy. Before you claimed that you're not trolling because you haven't flamed anybody. You're correct that you haven't flamed anybody, but trolling != flaming. Repeatedly demonstrating the rudeness described in my previous post is in fact trolling the thread.

Granted, I suppose it's as much your right to troll this thread as it is mine to start threads, though you'll have to forgive me if I henceforth ignore your commentary as it adds nothing useful to the topic being discussed.

 

[WarAngel]

Does any of this have a point, new topic or original?

 

[shrundowr]

First off dude, using wikipedia for RunUO information is a really bad idea due to the amount of Edit Wars that have been taking place on it over the past couple months.

As a matter of fact, this is at the top of the discussion page:

This article is a frequent source of heated debate. Please try to keep a cool head when responding to comments on this talk page.