On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:56:44 +0200, Hadron wrote:

> Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> writes:
>> On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 18:15:13 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>> Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> writes:
>>>> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 10:42:46 +0200, Hadron wrote:
>>>>> Tim Smith <reply_in_group@mouse-potato.com> writes:
>>>>>> In article <pan.2007.08.01.20.23.13.919771@you.now>,
>>>>>> Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>>>>>>> > And also don't make me google up the Wine developers referring
>>>>>>> > to it as an emulator too. It already made a few people here cry.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let me do that for you... From the Wine About page:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Wine is a translation layer (a program loader) capable of running
>>>>>>> Windows applications on Linux and other POSIX compatible operating
>>>>>>> systems. Windows programs running in Wine act as native programs
>>>>>>> would, running without the performance or memory usage penalties
>>>>>>> of an emulator, with a similar look and feel to other applications
>>>>>>> on your desktop."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> From the Wine FAQ:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Why do some people write WINE and not Wine?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> They are using the acronym "Wine Is Not an Emulator", the original
>>>>>>> name for the project. While recursive acronyms are clever, there
>>>>>>> really is no point to the capital letters. They look ugly, so
>>>>>>> please use the simpler, current name of the project: Wine. It's
>>>>>>> what we use."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's surprising the current FAQ would say that was the original
>>>>>> name of the project. The recursive acronym was first suggested in
>>>>>> 1993, on comp.os.linux.misc:
>>>>
>>>> Considering the Wine project started in 1993 I'm not sure what you're
>>>> trying to say here.
>>>>
>>>>>> The word Wine stands for one of two things: WINdows Emulator, or
>>>>>> Wine Is Not an Emulator. Both are right. Use whichever one you
>>>>>> like best.
>>>>
>>>> That would seem to prove and disprove both statements being made in
>>>> this thread.
>>>
>>> Hang on. No it doesn't. It is an emulator. The fact the name or the
>>> commonly used name changed doesn't change anything.
>>
>> May I quote you:
>>
>> "And please don't quote the "Wine Is Not An Emulator". That is an urban
>> myth."
>>
>> It clearly isn't a myth.
>
> I meant that it was never the official name.

I don't think it was ever stated that it was the official name... at least
not by me. It was in fact called Wine is not an emulator.

>>>>> Thanks Tim. I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots
>>>>> wish to change history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the
>>>>> COLA gang seem to get some browny points for disputing history. The
>>>>> adage that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so
>>>>> accurate as here.
>>>>
>>>> Indeed thanks Tim... you proved that neither of us are correct and
>>>> we're both correct.
>>>
>>> No. It proves that the it is an Emulator.
>>
>> No... it simply does not.
>>
>> Whether Wine is a true emulator is debated even within the Wine
>> development community.
>
> What is this "true emulator" to which you refer?
>
> Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.

The Wine project was started in 1993. It was called Wine is not an
emulator in 1993... it was also apparently called WINdows Emulator in
1993.

>> I would argue that since Wine isn't software pretending to be hardware
>> it isn't an emulator. Obviously you, and others, would disagree with
>> that.
>
> Yes. including the project originators. Why do think it has to be HW to
> be emulator?

Are all C compilers written after the original K&R compiler emulators?
Saying that any software that does what other software does are emulators
makes the word lose all meaning.

>>>> Hadron, the whole "Linux zealot" bull**** makes you sound like a
>>>> troll... especially since you have no idea what my experience is.
>>>>
>>>> Also, if you're going to whine about people trying to change history
>>>> it
>>>
>>> I am not whining about anyone changing history. I pointed out that the
>>> developers dropped the emulator part of the name because it confused
>>> people who ONLY understood HW emulators.
>>
>> I'll quote you again:
>>
>> "I really am at a loss to understand why Linux zealots wish to change
>> history. It's blatantly clear what WINE is yet the COLA gang seem to
>> get some browny points for disputing history. The adage that a little
>> knowledge is a dangerous thing was never so accurate as here."
>>
>> Are you disputing whether that's whining or not? By my definition,
>> that's whining. ...and for the record: **** COLA. Most of the people in
>> COLA are
>
> That is not whining. it is stating disbelief.

....stated as a two year old would.

>> Windows users whose sole purpose is to start stupid arguments like
>> this.
>>
>>>> would appear that the Wine developers or FAQ maintainers are the ones
>>>> you should be focusing on.
>>>
>>> Huh? What *are* you talking about? This stared because someone stated
>>> that WINE is most definitely NOT an emulator. Enough links and proof
>>> have now been posted to put that claim to the sword.
>>
>> In my opinion Wine is not an emulator. Clearly in the minds of the Wine
>> community many of them would agree.
>
> The wrong ones. Sorry. WINdows Emulator.

Which is not the official name either... the official name is Wine.

....and I'll quote again:

"Myth 1: "Wine is slow because it is an emulator" Some people mean by that
that Wine must emulate each processor instruction of the Windows
application. This is plain wrong. As Wine's name says: "Wine Is Not an
Emulator": Wine does not emulate the Intel x86 processor. It will thus not
be as slow as Wabi which, since it is not running on a x86 Intel
processor, also has to emulate the processor. Windows applications that do
not make system calls will run just as fast as on Windows (no more no
less)."

http://www.winehq.org/site/myths

>>>> Let's start the does "Xwindows exist" argument now.
>>>>
>>> Huh? Are you picking a fight with yourself?
>>
>> Just pointing out yet another meaningless argument.
>>
> Look. Stop. Go back.
>
> Someone, not me started this. They stated that WINE is NOT an emulator.
> It has been proven over and over that if you are capable of thinking
> about what emulation is that WINE was and is an emulator.

I have seen no proof... I've seen debate and opinion.

> It was even named WINDOWS EMULATOR until confusions arose because of
> people like unable to understand that you can emulate APIs in SW as well
> as HW varieties.

Yes... apparently a lot of people involved with Wine have stated that it
is not an emulator.

If I write an OS from the ground up that runs binaries compiled for
another OS natively does that make it an emulator?

On 2007-08-03, Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> wrote:
>>> It's surprising the current FAQ would say that was the original name of
>>> the project. The recursive acronym was first suggested in 1993, on
>>> comp.os.linux.misc:
>
> Considering the Wine project started in 1993 I'm not sure what you're
> trying to say here.

The recursive acronym was first suggested in 1993, as a way to deal with
concerns that "Windows Emulator" might have trademark problems. The
suggestion was not taken, though. It wasn't until several years later
that it became a co-name of the project.

Ivan Marsh <annoyed@you.now> writes:

>>
>> Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.
>
> The Wine project was started in 1993. It was called Wine is not an
> emulator in 1993... it was also apparently called WINdows Emulator in
> 1993.
>

"apparently" and after. It was someone being smart.

The official FAQ, which two people have posted links to, was entitled
"WINdows Emulator".

Now enough with silly word games.

WINE is and was an emulator. Not a HW one, not an opcode simulator, but
it *emulates* the Windows system calls. It really is.

People think they are being clever by stating that it is NOT an
emulator. This has been proven to be false.

This was in the FAQ section I posted.

it is ridiculous to try and twist this for whatever motives.

End of thread for me since you seem intent on confusing the issue.

On Fri, 03 Aug 2007 12:38:24 -0500, in comp.sys.ibm.pc.games.rpg, Ivan Marsh
wrote:

>If I write an OS from the ground up that runs binaries compiled for
>another OS natively does that make it an emulator?

I dunno. Was QDOS (PC-DOS) a CP/M emulator? };^>

This has been very entertaining.

--
Zag


"The Ends Justify The Means" ~Niccolo Machiavelli, c. 1550

"The Means Justify The Means" ~George W. Bush, c. 2000

On 2007-08-03, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
> What is this "true emulator" to which you refer?
>
> Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.

Are you aware that your sole argument is "a guy said it is an emulator"?

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

On 2007-08-03, alexti <QQalextiQQ@sfs.dfsdf> wrote:
> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in
> news:slrnfb6cbi.66o.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan:
>
>>
>> User software _should_ _not_ even be aware on what hardware it runs on.
>> That's why people developed OSes and APIs to create familiar layer for
>> regular programmers (API) and software (ABI) to rely on.
>>
>> There are exactly two reasons why regular sw crashes depending on
>> different hw:
>>
>> - it runs on top of faulty abstraction layer
>> - the programmer found a way to circumvent abstraction layer and
>> did something he shouldn't have.
> I would disagree that those are the only reasons. From my practice, the
> following are much more common:
> (a) software uses uninitialised memory;
> (b) software uses unallocated memory;
> (c) software uses unallocated *and* uninitialised memory.
> Those are really good methods to make the program have strange and
> unexplicable behaviour on different configurations.
>
> (b) can probably be considered as a particular case of your second reason
> though.

Please note the "depending on different hw".

--
What a strange game.
The only winning move is not to play.

How about a nice game of chess?

Davorin Vlahovic wrote:

> On 2007-08-03, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
>> What is this "true emulator" to which you refer?
>>
>> Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.
>
> Are you aware that your sole argument is "a guy said it is an emulator"?
>

You know, it *has* to be true, since it supports the argument of the "true
linux advocate", "kernel hacker", "emacs user", "swapfile expert", "X
specialist", "CUPS guru" and "hardware maven" Hadron Quark

And he will staunchly ignore that *if* it is true, then WinNT also uses
an "emulator". Even several, for different types of win-apps

--
Law of Probable Dispersal:
Whatever it is that hits the fan will not be evenly distributed.

On Aug 3, 11:20 am, Hadron <hadronqu...@googlemail.com> wrote:
> WINE is and was an emulator. Not a HW one, not an opcode simulator, but
> it *emulates* the Windows system calls. It really is.

You guys take names too seriously! Oh, wait, I see this thread
is crossposted to *.advocacy. I'm not surprised anymore.
Anybody who posts in *.advocacy is an idiot (oh, wait... :-)

The guys who say "wine is not an emulator" mean "wine isn't
a hardware emulator that lets you boot windows, and therefore
it doesn't require you to boot up, nor does it require a windows
license,
and it doesn't keep the windows files in a place you
can't get at easily; instead,
it provides implementations of each windows syscall,
and lets you store your files alongside your unix files."
(At least the good ones do.)

The post earlier in the thread about "small minded pedants" hit the
nail on the head.

Ho, hum, back to triaging wine problem reports...
- Dan

In article <1186237510.138115.110610@e9g2000prf.googlegroups. com>,
DanKegel <daniel.r.kegel******.com> wrote:
> Ho, hum, back to triaging wine problem reports...
> - Dan

If you are the same Dan Kegel who wrote that great article on the C10K
problem, then let me say that is one of the most useful things I've come
across on the web. Thanks! (Especially since it looks like you've been
keeping it up-to-date...something that far too few people do when they
manage to write something great about the current state of a technology).


--
--Tim Smith

Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in
news:slrnfb8d9j.3br.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan:

> On 2007-08-03, alexti <QQalextiQQ@sfs.dfsdf> wrote:
>> Davorin Vlahovic <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in
>> news:slrnfb6cbi.66o.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan:
>>
>>>
>>> User software _should_ _not_ even be aware on what hardware it runs
>>> on. That's why people developed OSes and APIs to create familiar
>>> layer for regular programmers (API) and software (ABI) to rely on.
>>>
>>> There are exactly two reasons why regular sw crashes depending on
>>> different hw:
>>>
>>> - it runs on top of faulty abstraction layer
>>> - the programmer found a way to circumvent abstraction layer and
>>> did something he shouldn't have.
>> I would disagree that those are the only reasons. From my practice,
>> the following are much more common:
>> (a) software uses uninitialised memory;
>> (b) software uses unallocated memory;
>> (c) software uses unallocated *and* uninitialised memory.
>> Those are really good methods to make the program have strange and
>> unexplicable behaviour on different configurations.
>>
>> (b) can probably be considered as a particular case of your second
>> reason though.
>
> Please note the "depending on different hw".
Yep, different hardware is very useful to make content of uninitialised
memory more random.

"Davorin Vlahovic" <nrubA@ylf.krs.ref.rh> wrote in message
news:slrnfb8d83.3br.nrubA@afrodita.home.lan...
| On 2007-08-03, Hadron <hadronquark@googlemail.com> wrote:
| > What is this "true emulator" to which you refer?
| >
| > Wine was originally "Windows Emulator". Open your mind a little.
|
| Are you aware that your sole argument is "a guy said it is an emulator"?
|

There's a bit of a difference between "a guy" saying it, and "the guys who
came up with the idea and created the program" saying it... Besides, the
problem has become the semantics between everyone's different views of how
to define an emulator, not the program itself anymore... To some it will be
an emulator, to others it won't. You say tomato, I say BOWLING SHOES!

CoinSpin

On Aug 4, 8:28 am, Tim Smith <reply_in_gr...@mouse-potato.com> wrote:
> If you are the same Dan Kegel who wrote that great article on the C10K
> problem, then let me say that is one of the most useful things I've come
> across on the web. Thanks! (Especially since it looks like you've been
> keeping it up-to-date...

Yes. And it's not really up to date. There are some cool things going
on I haven't gotten around to documenting there :-(

Kier <vallon@tiscali.co.uk> writes:

> On Thu, 02 Aug 2007 02:58:16 +0100, Gerry Quinn wrote:
>
>> [Followups restored, including followups to the morons' newsgroup, also
>> known as comp.sys.linux.advocacy.
>
> No it isn't, it's known ONLY as comp.os.linux.advocacy. If you're going to
> insult COLA, at least be accurate.

Stop being such a shining little apologist. COLA is know as a loony bin
in the real Linux world. Just read a few of Mark Kent's posts to see
why.

"COLA - hindering Linux advocacy is the name of the game."