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

[realko]

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.

This is very well emulation. Just look at a common dict. what emulation means.
It even fits the technical definition, takes the same data - allows to run the same applications.

 

[Alari]

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.

You're right, I guess technically it's a packet emulator. ^.^

If you're opposed to the use of the word 'emulator' anywhere in there though, what would you refer to it as instead?

 

[xlinux]

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.

Quoting Wikipedia is by no means "empirical demonstration," unless your definition of empirical is something different.

See, here's the thing. Repeatedly decrying something's accuracy as faulty without explicity demonstrating why reeks of a double standard.

If your memory of college science classes was not foggy, you'd know that scientific papers are considered authoritative when they 1. cite all sources and 2. pass the test of peer review. Once they do that, they become just as credible as the sources cited unless the cited sources lose their credibility. That makes Wikipedia's article authoritative and credible.

That means the burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate why that article and all its sources are not accurate. I expect your sources cited.

I'll wait.

You're right, I guess technically it's a packet emulator. ^.^

No, technically it reimplements the UO server protocol which means it reimplements the packet structure. In no place in the process is there any emulation performed.

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

Ah, but I am. The only valid argument anyone has made so far is that the term should change because it is colloquially accurate enough and less cumbersome than "server reimplementation." Though, to counter that I'd simply encourage people to use the term "UO server" or "free UO server" for more accuracy. Both of which are shorter than "server emulator."

 

[XuriDabur]

Ah, but I am. The only valid argument anyone has made so far is that the term should change because it is colloquially accurate enough and less cumbersome than "server reimplementation." Though, to counter that I'd simply encourage people to use the term "UO server" or "free UO server" for more accuracy. Both of which are shorter than "server emulator."

Both of which also refer to the actual servers/shards run using the software. So those terms aren't really suitable if you want "more accuracy" when describing the software.

 

[xlinux]

Perhaps. A better term might be "server package" or "server software" in place of "server emulator" which is still less syllables and near equal character length.

The point is there are infinitely better terms that are not as cumbersome as "server reimplementation" but vastly more accurate than "server emulator." Pick one.

 

[shrundowr]

Perhaps. A better term might be "server package" or "server software" in place of "server emulator" which is still less syllables and near equal character length.

The point is there are infinitely better terms that are not as cumbersome as "server reimplementation" but vastly more accurate than "server emulator." Pick one.

See, here's the thing. Repeatedly decrying something's accuracy as faulty without explicity demonstrating why reeks of a double standard.

The fact that anyone can edit it, is enough of a reason for it to be considered inaccurate, just as a precaution for arguments sake (like this one) For instance, I could go to wikipedia, look up the page 'stupid' and put an external link to your profile. Any kindergardener with a modem can edit wikipedia entries.

and I absolutley refuse to call it anything other than an emulator. And guess what? I'm not ignorant. I dont call scripts "text files of uncompiled C# code" either. I'm effing Normal, thats why. And you will not get a single person here to call it a "server package" instead of an emulator. k thnx goodbye.

 

[Alari]

The point is there are infinitely better terms that are not as cumbersome as "server reimplementation" but vastly more accurate than "server emulator." Pick one.

I already have. ^.^

The answer to the real question,
"Is the use of the term "emulator" to describe RunUO really accurate?"

is:


Yes. =)

Server emulator is just fine. (click for definition) "To strive to excel" describes the RunUO project and the dedication of the community perfectly.

 

[xlinux]

The fact that anyone can edit it, is enough of a reason for it to be considered inaccurate, just as a precaution for arguments sake (like this one) For instance, I could go to wikipedia, look up the page 'stupid' and put an external link to your profile. Any kindergardener with a modem can edit wikipedia entries.

Which gets reverted in short order and IPs banned. Go try it.

and I absolutley refuse to call it anything other than an emulator. And guess what? I'm not ignorant.

As I said before, no, not ignorant. Not anymore anyway. Now you're just stubborn and misguided.

The answer to the real question,
"Is the use of the term "emulator" to describe RunUO really accurate?"

is:


Yes. =)

Next time read the whole thread before replying. RunUO is computer software. Computer software falls under the discretion of the computer science definition. RunUO is not an emulator according to the computer science definition. So the answer is no.

 

[shrundowr]

Which gets reverted in short order and IPs banned. Go try it.

Yes, for something that drastic yes, although, i'm sure if the mediators clicked the "find all posts by this user" they might leave it
But for something thats technical, and since its already incorrect(prolly last edited by yourself lol) specialized, and something which can be argued (as proven here) probably not without having a large discussion with mediation on its talk page. And as I'vbe said the fact that it can be edited by anyone MAKES IT UNCREDIBLE. Alari cited a reference source which cannot be user edited, therefore his has credibility. Yours does not. You are wrong, We are right. Dont like it, get out.

And as for banning, they didnt ban me when I put an external link to my ex girlfriends myspace on the 'whore' page. All they did was warn me. But i am sure that such actions wont be taken that lightly often.

As I said before, no, not ignorant. Not anymore anyway. Now you're just stubborn and misguided.

No. My friend, you are the only stubborn and misguided person here. Being the only person who refuses to call it that, you are the ignorant one. And IT IS AN EMULATOR. Stop arguing semantics, you do realize people have been banned for stupidity, dont you.

Also This is funny: The title of this thread, started by yourself, reads: "Is the use of the term "emulator" to describe RunUO really accurate?" In a question form...hrmm for someone who is unsure enough to be asking a question you sure are arguing against the answer given to you.

 

[realko]

See, here's the thing. Repeatedly decrying something's accuracy as faulty without explicity demonstrating why reeks of a double standard.

If your memory of college science classes was not foggy, you'd know that scientific papers are considered authoritative when they 1. cite all sources and 2. pass the test of peer review. Once they do that, they become just as credible as the sources cited unless the cited sources lose their credibility. That makes Wikipedia's article authoritative and credible.

That means the burden of proof is on you. Demonstrate why that article and all its sources are not accurate. I expect your sources cited.

I'll wait.

Wikipedia has at 1st has no real peer review process. 2nd you can argue about this with science guys too if you are bored, but wikipedia is just never considered a valid reference, 'cause anybody can edit it. Its just that because it is the way it is.

No, technically it reimplements the UO server protocol which means it reimplements the packet structure. In no place in the process is there any emulation performed.

You can argue the same way about classical emulators the same. It reimplemnts the CPU structure.

Ah, but I am. The only valid argument anyone has made so far is that the term should change because it is colloquially accurate enough and less cumbersome than "server reimplementation." Though, to counter that I'd simply encourage people to use the term "UO server" or "free UO server" for more accuracy. Both of which are shorter than "server emulator."

You never answered properly to my objection that only BMW can build BMW parts... every one else can build BMW-Replikas at best (and if he is serious he has to take care not to use the term BMW with it)... usually people just know that the name of company X builds BMW-Replika-exchangeparts...

 

[realko]

So xlinux take a look at "your" wikipedia page. It now clearly constitutes the term "server emulator"... (and references at the bottom a lot of valid links...)

And as long you do not revert, I'm sure the wikipedia community won't!

How do you guys in this community call this? I guess: powned or something like that

Now you efforts even backfire, and the term "server emulator" gets even more widely spread... When I've got some time I'll make a "server emulator" page on wikipedia... just like "console emulator" and "arcade emulator" got already own pages... anybody wanna help?

 

[realko]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Server_emulator

I just started that. My spelling is bad and there is a lot to be added. Anybody (except xlinux ) Please help!

But please take care to not make it too UO centric, altough UO played a mayor role in the creation of server emulators.

 

[realko]

xlinux, you got into an edit frency at wikipedia?

I think its not fair, if the wikipedia community would have rejected themselfes such edits as you proposed in this thread, why do you have to push such yourself?

 

[shrundowr]

quad posting 4tw?

I'm beginning to think that realko and xlinux are one and the same arguing with themself...

 

[realko]

quad posting 4tw?

I'm beginning to think that realko and xlinux are one and the same arguing with themself...

If we would be the same person, would we quad post with a single account?

@xlinux, yes bring out all you sock-puppets on wikipedia, to give your usual arguments more weight with different names! Its just so funny, how you are freaking out You can't imagine how amused I feel

 

[Ryan]

I'll reiterate this.

RunUO is not an emulator.

If you call it an emulator you're wrong.

I get tired of the argument all the time.

RunUO is a Server Software Package.

It is a UO Server despite what some people want you to believe.

Oh and Jestix over @ Wikipedia is the self professed UO Emulation expert. However he is wrong.

 

[frogfusious]

Here's my view on this whole "emulator vs. server software package" argument: Yes, I agree that using the term "emulator" for RunUO is definitely incorrect in a technical sense. Windows and Linux are both operating systems but they aren't based off of the same code. While both products complete the same tasks more or less, they are completely independant projects. Now take Mandriva and Fedora Core. You're talking about two different products, but they are both based off of the Linux kernel, the same code. Therefore, they are "linux distributions" and are in the same field. The OSI Server and the RunUO server are not based off of the same code, therefore it's technically incorrect to call RunUO an "emulator" of the OSI server. Furthermore, the RunUO server software supports features that the OSI server software may never support. This doesen't mean that the OSI server software is inferior to RunUO(that is for a whole other debate). It simply means that the RunUO server software is not the same as the OSI server software and is therefore not an "emulator". Think of it more as an "alternative".

All of that being said, I'd like to restate a point that Anti-Basic previously made: It doesen't really matter. All of this nerdy computer jargon is ridiculous and mundane and the majority of Ultima Online players probably wouldn't care less. Oh what's that I just mentioned? "Ultima Online", you say? It seems to me that most of the snobby programmer types on these boards have forgotten why RunUO was originally designed: Ultima Online. Without the game RunUO would not exist. So why bother arguing over trivial technicalities that have nothing to do with the purpose and function of the RunUO software? As long as the RunUO project is still active and the software remains the best UO Server software out there(which it is), there's nothing to worry about. Just enjoy it. If you look at a painting and it is aestheically pleasing, why worry about what movement of art it is from? If you hear a song and it sounds good to you, why worry about what genre that particular song falls under? My point is: there's no reason to argue about ideas that have no impact on the quality of the product.

 

[XuriDabur]

RunUO is an UO Server yes - but it still falls under the category "UO server emulator" when using the same definition of the word that has been used to describe this and similar software since 1997. It is no less an UO server emulator than UOX3/Sphere/POL/WolfPack/Lonewolf is or Fuse/UOOS/NWO/UOAWE/Grayworld was, and neither of those are/were any less an "UO server" (by definition, not feature-wise) than RunUO is..

Definitions of words and terms change according to their usage; take the words "gay" and "fairy" as examples. The meaning of those words changed in the 20th century, because over time, people used them to describe people with affections for members of the same sex.

Even if it might be "technically wrong" to call RunUO and similar programs "UO server emulators", historical usage of the term (Nearly 9 years now) has set a strong precendence.

I leave you with some examples of said historical usage of the term:

From the readme.txt of UOX3 0.50, released 24 December 1997:

Welcome to UOX3, the first multiplayer-capable server emulator for Ultima Online. (No longer the only one

From the frontpage of http://uox.warlords.com as of May 17, 1998:

UOX is an Ultima Online Server Emulator.
Use this program to play UO offline

Raph Koster's "Online World Timeline", about 1998:

In September, UOX, the first UO server emulator, manages two simultaneous connections with UOX3.

felisandria posting on gamedev.net forums in August 1999:

The UooS emulator (Ultima Object-Oriented Server) pretends to be one of the servers that Origin Systems provides at a fee of $10/month to play Ultima Online. Basically you run the emulator on your computer, tell all your friends who want to play with you your ip address and provide them with passwords, then log your Ultima Online client into the server. Because the emulator is a server, it contains none of the information taken care of by the client (most notably the graphics and GUIs of the game) so unless you have Ultima Online, you will not be able to use the server. Technically the use of emulators became a violation of the user's agreement of Ultima Online when T2A came out, however, the legality of that change in the contract is under question.

From the FAQ-page of cfuse.com, April 2000:

Q: What is Fuse?
A: Fuse is an Ultima Online server emulator engine, it by itself does not run, you must have a dll to use it, dlls are also where all the features come from. Of course, if you are here, you know about Cfuse.

Sphereserver.com, june 14 2000:

Another update to the preview version of the SPHERE game client has been posted.This version includes starting skills and stats choices, and limited skill functionality.If you decide to try the SPHERE client, please report your bugs in the SPHERE Client forum in the Discussion area.Our preview release of this client is an effort to revitalize the EMU community, the SPHERE development team has decided to offer a preview of their soon to be released client. This client may be used with ALL emulators in the future and is in an alpha state. Please feel free to download the preview version in our Development / Files area.

Runuo.com's frontpage as of october 2002 used the word "emulator" to describe similar software several times:

Reliable, stable and easy to use... 3 words that do not describe any UO server (or emulator) out there. We are changing that rapidly!
...
By designing Run UO from the users perspective we have given ourselves an advantage over most if not all UO Servers and emulators out there.
...
We started behind the eight ball, yet progressed more in a few months than some servers or emulators have in years.
...
The combined experience on this team enables us to miss the problems that typically plague 'startup servers or emulators'.

From #runuo on July 27th 2004:

Session Start: Tue Jul 27 05:14:48 2004
Session Ident: #runuo
*** Now talking in #runuo
*** Topic is '#RunUO : The only choice for UO server emulation || http://www.runuo.com/'
*** Set by Zippy- on Sun Jul 25 22:49:24
...
<mrwiggles> but runuo is the only emu that'll support over 10 people online at teh same time :\

From #runuo on February 5th, 2006:

[23:15] * Zippy- changes topic to 'RunUO - Best UO emulator, ever. || So Steelers. Seattle blows.'

From the description written at the top of POL's forums as of July 11, 2006:

An Ultima Online Server Emulator

 

[Joeku]

Jesus, wouldn't it just be easier to change the definition of "emulator" than to argue about this?!

 

[XuriDabur]

Where would the fun in that be?