Well, I would argue that if it is not well-known, it is by definition
not useful.
Language is useful only if shared and, as my posting demonstrated, this
distinction
is simply not being observed in the real world.
My guess: This is a distinction that was once observed but has fallen
out of use.
It's a bit like the way I cringe when "hacker" is used for "cracker,"
but presumably
one that was lost earlier (ie, before my time).
I've finally had to admit that the battle to make "hacker" primarly a
compliment
has been lost, as has the battle for the word "gay" to mean
"happy-go-lucky." I
suggest you might want to similarly adjust to what "emulator" means now,
even if
it's "wrong."
Ron Stodden wrote:
>
> "Brian T. Schellenberger" wrote:
> >
> > I don't think so.
> >
> > I've been in the computer field professionally for 19 years, and I have
> > never heard this distinction raised.
>
> One can always learn. It is a useful distinction, but not
> well-known.
>
> Re your professional 19 years, mine are 37.
>
> --
>
> Regards,
>
> Ron. [AU] - sent by Linux.
--
"Brian, the man from babbleon-on" [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Brian T. Schellenberger http://www.babbleon.org
Support http://www.eff.org. Support decss
defendents.
Support http://www.programming-freedom.org. Boycott amazon.com.
