RE: Web: Fix the WWN intros

[Brian Vincent (C)]

> So why do we still say (the Un*x Windows emulator). ? If it's 
>  *not*  a emulator  ?

The only reason I ever left that in there is because that's
the way Eric had it.  (And he can always just blame it on 
being a native .fr speaker.)  Maybe I'll change it this week
to something more appropriate.  I've always hated saying something
like "an implementation of the Win32 API for Un*x", it sounds
too technical.  Emulator, while wrong in a technical sense, does
get the point across.

---------------
Brian Vincent
Copper Mountain Telecom
[e-mail]

Web: Fix the WWN intros

[Mike Hearn]

Not to mention that *nix, Un*x, or any other permutation of that name
with a * in it is really really annoying....

On Tue, 2003-07-15 at 17:00, Brian Vincent (C) wrote:
> > So why do we still say (the Un*x Windows emulator). ? If it's 
> >  *not*  a emulator  ?
>
> The only reason I ever left that in there is because that's
> the way Eric had it.  (And he can always just blame it on 
> being a native .fr speaker.)  Maybe I'll change it this week
> to something more appropriate.  I've always hated saying something
> like "an implementation of the Win32 API for Un*x", it sounds
> too technical.  Emulator, while wrong in a technical sense, does
> get the point across.
>
> Brian Vincent
> Copper Mountain Telecom
> [e-mail]

Web: Fix the WWN intros

[Francois Gouget]

On Tue, 15 Jul 2003, Brian Vincent (C) wrote:
> > So why do we still say (the Un*x Windows emulator). ? If it's
> >  *not*  a emulator  ?
>
> The only reason I ever left that in there is because that's
> the way Eric had it.  (And he can always just blame it on
> being a native .fr speaker.)

Well, you can also evade the issue like Alexandre did on ScreenSavers by
saying that Wine really is an emulator<g>: it's not a CPU emulator but
as far as Windows applications are concerned it does emulate the
behavior of real Windows.