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

[realko]

It means nobody would have any legal grounds with which to sue the authors of RunUO for using the Ultima Online trademark in a description of their product (much less the name).

If OSI/EA cared and challenged they might loose, but its quite definitive that they dont care.

Which means that your logic was flawed when you tried to justify the use of the term "emulator" as a legal defense.

I didn't see the word emulator is a defense. Its a justification why things are called the way they are.

Sigh, you still don't get it. Reimplementation != emulation.

Sorry but thats just wrong, emulation is reimplementation, its at least very near together, when we call a thing this or that happens on common sense how the reimplementation is done.

As I told you call it "UO Server Reimplementation" but dont leave the "Re" away, since then you are doing the error like I explained over and over with BMW

Only in the MMORPG world. And only in those interested in free servers. Vast minority when compared to computer science at large.

I don't get it, it's not "that" wrong.

The usage problem started in the UO community. Currently, RunUO is the most popular free UO server. Perhaps by enlightening the community here of the fact that it's the wrong use of the term, the knowledge will trickle down to the rest in much the same way the ignorance did.

Look google hits for "server emulator" 8.230.000 times... are you all going to explain them? Do you thing if RunUO changed it website anybody else would care?

Or perhaps not. But it's better than doing nothing while ignorance proliferates. At least I can say I tried. Even in the face of such misguided stubbornness.

But why? What advantages or disadvantage would you get?

For me the term "server emulator" clearly gives the english language more value, since it differences things that would be undifferenced otherwise, if anybody would call everything an "implementation of"..

 

[realko]

MMORPGs (both client and server) are computer programs which fall under the discretion of computer science jargon.

Especially computer science jargon is not created by smart-ass guys like you, or anyone else that tells people how to call things. They look at the usage how things are called, and then write it down for "computer science newbies" to understand what is common understanding about that. You can correct one, but you can't correct all.

Look at example for words of:
"to boot"
"PROM"
"a bit"
"a byte"

... Would you please as next for example start a thread, that "a byte" should be 32 bit, since the human jaw has 32 teeth, and not 8?
... and the next thread, that "to boot" is wrong, since nobody from us usually wears boots when starting our PCs should be called "to shoe" and since actually the feet aren't involved in starting a computer it should be called "to button".

 

[shrundowr]

Sorry, I was caught off guard by your inability to form a coherent argument (much less spell).

His argument is much more clear than yours. And my spellcheck plugin for FF detected no misspellings in his post.

Or perhaps not. But it's better than doing nothing while ignorance proliferates. At least I can say I tried. Even in the face of such misguided stubbornness.

Ahh again with the insults...Even though Ryan has said numerous times that RunUO is not an emulator he has used the word alot and also frequently describes your "uncompiled text files of C# code" as scripts as well. Just like evryone else here. Why? because its easier and more commonplace. whybdont you try using the software instead of arguing about it.

 

[shrundowr]

Also you are always referring to yourself as in the computer science field...What work of yours can you show us that you have done? OutKast calls them scripts and I can search his name for all threads posted in custom script releases and see quite a few scripts ...what have You done, Mr. Computer Science?

 

[Vhaerun]

What I find interesting is a slight tangent off what AB just stated. About 52 posts between realko and xlinux, and near ninety posts in this thread.

Now we all know about opinions. But in my own humble opinion, it seems a bit unfair to continually semantically attack a community's use of a certain word when it seems you haven't contributed to said community at all.

ADDENDUM: In fact, I just checked. No other posts except this thread. I agree with WarAngel. Not worth the effort in responding.

 

[shrundowr]

What I find interesting is a slight tangent off what AB just stated. About 52 posts between realko and xlinux, and near ninety posts in this thread.

Now we all know about opinions. But in my own humble opinion, it seems a bit unfair to continually semantically attack a community's use of a certain word when it seems you haven't contributed to said community at all.

ADDENDUM: In fact, I just checked. No other posts except this thread. I agree with WarAngel. Not worth the effort in responding.

Maybe realko and xlinux are the same person, with multiple personalities who keep arguing with themselves...oh the insanity!!! lol.

 

[punt59]

Here.



It's less a redefinition and more a refinement. The computer science definition of emulator is very much like the laymen's definition of emulator, but only applies to a very specific kind of software.

Well, I don't take a web based wiki as a reference for anything. At best, it is for something to get me in the ball park. But again, that is my use. I haven't seen it used to date as an deciding judication, but that is just me.

If I used a web wiki in my "computer science" enviroment as a reference to substantiate my position, it would be discontented immediately. That is my enviroment of course. Just given you insight, that to some, that link is the same as presening nothing (again, it can mean a great deal to you, just may not have any impact to others that one is attempting to have them reconsider their position).

Strictly speaking, the only reason anybody in this forum misuses the term is because those who came before them in the community misused the term. It could probably be traced back down to one or two men.

I have no idea why any uses the term. I dont believe I am qualified to even speculate on why. Clearly others feel different.

My personal favorite aspect of the thread is that even after I convince people the term is wrong, they continue to misuse it. Funny, isn't it?

There is no question in my mind, that people feel they have made the "convincing" argument, that it is undisputable. I personally haven't found anything compelling on any side. I understand the defintion as used by each, and given that definition, why one feels it to be accurate or not. But nothing else I have gathered from this thread. No doubt, others feel they have.

 

[WarAngel]

MMORPGs (both client and server) are computer programs which fall under the discretion of computer science jargon.

Well this definition of "emulator" is a sub-class of computer science and gets its own modified version of the word. You can't tell me I'm wrong because you have no way to prove it. We could argue hypotheticals or whatever this kind of stuff even is all day, and neither of us can ever be proved correct because people use words the way they want to. Stop calling us ignorant because we choose to use words differently from ourselves.

 

[xlinux]

I didn't see the word emulator is a defense. Its a justification why things are called the way they are.

You in fact said: "Thats why another implementation thats not part of that project cannot be "An Ultima Online Server". Just for calling it that - way written out - you are infringing Trade Mark Protections. Thats why its a rebuild of a part of another project - an emulator."

If you weren't implying in that statement that the word emulator was chosen to avoid trademark infringement, then I don't know what you were trying to imply.

Sorry but thats just wrong, emulation is reimplementation

Not in the established computer science sense of the word.

His argument is much more clear than yours. And my spellcheck plugin for FF detected no misspellings in his post.

I could reciprocate here by making a rather mean spirited comment about your ability to read and comprehend, but I'll settle with encouraging you look a little harder with that plugin at the rest of his posts in this thread, since you find it so interesting.

Well, I don't take a web based wiki as a reference for anything.

FYI, Wikipedia cites all its sources for that article, and there is no heated debate concerning the content on the talk page. Sounds pretty authoritative to me.

We could argue hypotheticals or whatever this kind of stuff even is all day, and neither of us can ever be proved correct because people use words the way they want to.

There is nothing hypothetical about my argument. It's the wrong term.

 

[WarAngel]

There is nothing hypothetical about my argument. It's the wrong term.

No it's not. You have no way to prove it either. So this is completely pointless, and you're now just irritating users and insulting their intelligence.

@Moderator: Can a moderator please lock this topic? It's just going to turn nasty, and has absolutely no purpose whatsoever.

 

[shrundowr]

He still cannot show that he has done anything worthy of placing him in the "computer science community" So that means...his opinion doesn't count. yay!

 

[Alari]

RunUO meets the dictionary definition, though perhaps not the technicial computery definition of an emulator, since when people think of an "emulator" they usually have something like MAME in mind, a program that emulates the hardware functions of a foreign machine (and by foreign I mean a different architecture than the one the emulator is running on) to run a ROM image of a software program designed for the original machine.

Whereas I've always thought of RunUO as a server emulator, since it emulates the functions of the official servers, in as much as packets and such are concerned. =) That is correct usage of the word "emulate" (see first link) - just not the meaning technical people expect. English is wonderfully vague like that. :>

Edit: MAME is short for Multiple Arcade Machine Emulator - The "machine" is the important part, since it describes exactly what is being emulated. It's just that the most common form of 'emulator' is a machine emulator, and it's easier to simply describe a program as an 'emulator' rather than, say, a Nintendo Entertainment System Machine Emulator - the 'machine' part is implied when you see "Play NES games on this emulator!"

Emulation cannot exist in a void, something must BE emulated. RunUO literally pretends to be an OSI server* - thus, server emulator.

* Packet-wise.

 

[shrundowr]

a round of beers at hooters for Alari for settling this once and for all


..oohh wait 10 bucks says xlinux is gonna make a post to argue even him...ah well its beer, chicks and boobs...for hes a jolly good fellow, for hes a jolly good fellow...*passes out*

 

[realko]

FYI, Wikipedia cites all its sources for that article, and there is no heated debate concerning the content on the talk page. Sounds pretty authoritative to me.

If you would be really affiliated with any sience you would know that citing wikipedia is a no,no,no.

 

[realko]

He still cannot show that he has done anything worthy of placing him in the "computer science community" So that means...his opinion doesn't count. yay!

Well as much I disagree with xlinux, I dont see it like that. Also in example in a democracy you dont have to have merits to have an oppinion and the right to sound it.

To this case I would say, yes xlinux your proposal is noted, but I dont think it well ever change anything, becase there are at least just as much counter-arguments that even up.

 

[xlinux]

No it's not. You have no way to prove it either.

I have in fact proven it. You yourself already conceded that in a previous post when you changed your story from "you're wrong" to "you're right but nobody cares." I guess now you appear to be back to arguing "you're wrong?"

RunUO meets the dictionary definition, though perhaps not the technicial computery definition of an emulator, since when people think of an "emulator" they usually have something like MAME in mind, a program that emulates the hardware functions of a foreign machine (and by foreign I mean a different architecture than the one the emulator is running on) to run a ROM image of a software program designed for the original machine.

Whereas I've always thought of RunUO as a server emulator, since it emulates the functions of the official servers, in as much as packets and such are concerned. =) That is correct usage of the word "emulate" (see first link) - just not the meaning technical people expect. English is wonderfully vague like that. :>

A vagueness I'm hoping to clear up. I know people around here tend to think of RunUO as a "server emulator" but as you yourself have demonstrated by reiterating my argument, the term is just plain not correct.

Emulation cannot exist in a void, something must BE emulated. RunUO literally pretends to be an OSI server* - thus, server emulator.

* Packet-wise.

Now you're contradicting yourself. As you yourself have demonstrated by reiterating my points, replacing a server with a rebuilt server designed to connect to the original client is not emulation.

a round of beers at hooters for Alari for settling this once and for all

Maybe you shouldn't have read it so quickly. His first paragraph reiterated everything I said, thus confirming my argument.

If you would be really affiliated with any sience you would know that citing wikipedia is a no,no,no.

Absolutely ridiculous. Let me say once again that Wikipedia's page discussing emulation cites all its sources and no heated debates exist on the talk page. Do you know what that means? It means all the information in the article comes from authoritative places and the text has passed the test of peer review. There can be no more critical and empirical a test.

Attacking my credibility concerning science matters by arbitrarily disregarding what has been empirically demonstrated (much less misspelling science) is a poor way to earn your own credibility.

 

[WarAngel]

I have in fact proven it. You yourself already conceded that in a previous post.



A vagueness I'm hoping to clear up. I know people around here tend to think of RunUO as a "server emulator" but as you yourself have demonstrated by reiterating my argument, the term is just plain not correct.



Now you're contradicting yourself. As you yourself have demonstrated by reiterating my points, replacing a server with a rebuilt server designed to connect to the original client is not emulation.



Maybe you shouldn't have read it so quickly. His first paragraph reiterated everything I said, thus confirming my argument.



Absolutely ridiculous. Let me say once again that Wikipedia's page discussing emulation cites all its sources an no heated debates exist on the talk page. Do you know what that means? It means all the information in the article comes from authoritative places and the text has passed the test of peer review. There can be no more critical and empirical a test.

You know what? Fine. I'm not even arguing anymore! You can rest assured that I think you're correct! You're so correct in fact that I will make a statue of you and worship you every night before I go to bed. That's what you are here for, right? At least that's your attitude. *cough*Egotistical maniac*cough*

Attacking my credibility concerning science matters by arbitrarily disregarding what has been empirically demonstrated (much less misspelling science) is a poor way to earn your own credibility.

Quoting Wikipedia is by no means "empirical demonstration," unless your definition of empirical is something different. Maybe now we can have a debate on the word "empirical" too!

 

[shrundowr]

Maybe you shouldn't have read it so quickly. His first paragraph reiterated everything I said, thus confirming my argument.

He didnt reiterate shit. noone here is saying that you are wrong... we are telling you that: It doesn't effing matter!

 

[realko]

Absolutely ridiculous. Let me say once again that Wikipedia's page discussing emulation cites all its sources and no heated debates exist on the talk page. Do you know what that means? It means all the information in the article comes from authoritative places and the text has passed the test of peer review. There can be no more critical and empirical a test.

However your point shows you are not in science, than you would know that
a) wikipedia is considered to be never a valid scientific reference.
b) you would know to distingusih citing an author himself and citing the citer of something.

Attacking my credibility concerning science matters by arbitrarily disregarding what has been empirically demonstrated (much less misspelling science) is a poor way to earn your own credibility.

Look xlinux I'm still waiting for your explanation why its so much of your interest that exactly this term is spelled "right", you dont care about others? But why this? You must have some special motivation...

And as explained over and over. Just for 1 second step out of your nerd-view from things. The word "emulator" has been introduced by the first guy writing an hardware emulation also, he just used it, it was not definition in a dictionary by then. It spread around and it was common for nerds to call hard ware simulations (or you could call them also "software reimplementations of hardware"). It becam common use, and sometime it was added to the dictionary. So why do you see language so static? A static nerd language that was very vivid 20-30 years ago when computer science was new...

Will you please talk to everyone in the world to call their emulators "software reimplementations of hardware"?

 

[realko]

He didnt reiterate shit. noone here is saying that you are wrong... we are telling you that: It doesn't effing matter!

He isn't 100% right either...
things are not black and white!