Date:	Sun, 19 Mar 2000 08:27:38 +0600 (LKT)
From:	Kalum Somaratna aka Grendel <kalum AT lintux DOT cx>
X-Sender:	root AT darkstar DOT grendel DOT net
To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Subject:	Re: Not-emulators (was AMD processors and assembly language)
In-Reply-To:	<2sc7dsk3vekkctvdcahpghotopg77ub33l@4ax.com>
Message-ID:	<Pine.LNX.4.10.10003190825090.1845-100000@darkstar.grendel.net>
MIME-Version:	1.0
Reply-To:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
Errors-To:	dj-admin AT delorie DOT com
X-Mailing-List:	djgpp AT delorie DOT com
X-Unsubscribes-To:	listserv AT delorie DOT com

On Sat, 18 Mar 2000, Damian Yerrick wrote:

> On Sat, 18 Mar 2000 08:37:21 -0600, Weiqi Gao <weiqigao AT a DOT crl DOT com>
> wrote:
> 
> >Wilmer van der Gaast wrote:
> >> 
> >> One day, Kalum Somaratna made the following words appear on our screens:
> >> > > Wine Is Not an Emulator in the strictest sense ;-)
> >> >
> >> > Well in reality it is a emulator, it enables windoze programs to run under
> >> > linux, it emulates the win32 API. SO it is a emulator.
> >> >
> >> You know what the name WINE means?
> >> 
> >> Wine Is Not an Emulator.
> >
> >You are not arguing the substance here, but rather the definition of the
> >term 'emulator'.  As is always in such cases, you need to find an agreed
> >upon authoritative definition of the term 'emulator' first and then
> >proceed from there.
> 
> Asking Jeeves "What is an ator?"
> 
> comp.emulators.misc FAQ, section 1.2
> http://www.faqs.org/faqs/emulators-faq/part1/
> 66
> For the record, there is no such thing as an X "emulator;"
> X is a standard. You IMPLEMENT it on a platform, not EMULATE it.
> 99
> Much the same way you IMPLEMENT Win32 on a platform.
> You lose, Grendel.

I hope this isn't off topic but it is Not so..please  read on..!

> 
> Free On-line Dictionary of Computing
> http://nightflight.com/cgi-bin/foldoc.cgi?emulation
> 66
> One system is said to emulate another when it performs in exactly the
> same way, though perhaps not at the same speed. A typical example
> would be emulation of one computer by (a program running on) another.
> You might use an emulation as a replacement for a system whereas you
> would use a simulation if you just wanted to analyse it and make
> predictions about it. 
> 99
> I don't like the FOLDOC definition because it implies that simple
> implementation of the same standard that another system implements
> would be considered emulation.  Would you call XFree86 an
> "X11 emulator"?

In the true sense of the word "emulation" according to the FOLDC this
would be true enough, as Xfree86 indeed enables us to run programs written
for X.

So I didn't loose anything Damien..
Grendel.



Hi, I'm a signature virus. plz set me as your signature and help me spread
:)

- Raw text -