Hmmm – seems to be an ongoing discussion – IETF and the Linux Kernel and, wherever else …
Proposed alternatives for master/slave include:
primary/secondary
main/replica or subordinate
initiator/target
requester/responder
controller/device
host/worker or proxy
leader/follower
director/performer
Proposed alternatives for blacklist/whitelist include:
denylist/allowlist
blocklist/passlist
[HR][/HR]Gee – Golly gosh, engineers been using language which is currently “politically incorrect” for more years than I can remember …
Since the inception of hydraulic brake systems, the terms “master cylinder
” and “slave cylinders” have been used – the Lockheed patent for hydraulic brakes dates back to 1917 … - The same goes for hydraulic clutch (vehicle transmission) systems …
To be perfectly honest, I’m flabbergasted but, “have to move with the times” …
I’ve seen lots about this kind of stuff and frankly I am perplexed as to why folks get upset by this. There are far more important things to be concerned about than ages old terminology. This is all part of the woke world we live in. ‘Get a Life’ is my response.
Yes, I’m surprised by the current sensitivity to well-established engineering terminology …
On the other hand, when we “look over the fence”, there are many discussions going on with respect to the terminology related to various things, such as religious beliefs –
*=2]Martin Luther’s translation of the Christian Bible from original (as possible) text to German has terminology which upsets some people …
[HR][/HR]Possibly “being upset” is a human trait …
There have long been sensitivities over language with sensitivities changing decade by decade and century by century - in the 17th century the English translators of the bible largely avoided using the words ‘slave’ and ‘congregation’ because people were sensitive about them - in the 1970s it was offensive language in relation to women which dominated language discussions - it is hardly surprising in the time of Black Lives Matter that this topic has come to the fore because it has huge sensitivity for many in the US.
When you come in on Monday and find out a colleague has lost two children in a tragic accident, you suddenly realise that emotive technical terms such as killing, aborting, or terminating seem far less appropriate than more exact and neutral terms such as signalling or stopping.
It doesn’t cost much to consider the language we use and opt for conventions that are meaningful and neutral.
Or alternatively people could stop being offended by every little thing.
I swear, western societies have become a sea of emotionally incontinent people who in a real crisis would break down in pieces and would become even more useless than they are now.
Why would ANYONE even consider changing these terms? More to the point, who at Opensuse subscribes to these language Nazis? Can anyone name anyone who is discouraged from getting computing because of these words? Who are they? If Sues wants to go down this path then count me out.
I was just presenting a situation where a less than considerate choice of language could cause upset to others. The example also served to illustrate that if the historical choice had been a more neutral, the awkwardness in such situations could be avoided. I would add that I don’t think we should go back and change UNIX, but when coding a dialog box in an app exercise some common sense.
More generally, avoid the tech talk about killing children, parents, slaves or even supervisors when riding the bus or passing through airport security. This is especially important in unfamiliar countries or neighborhoods.
Extremely unpleasant – in all it’s forms and incarnations …
Yes, agreed, IMHO, we need to take care that, the implications of National Socialism doesn’t begin to creep into our everyday language – technical or otherwise …
Which is why, I, personally, do not agree with the reasons being put forward for changes to our technical language related to “Offensive Terms in Computing”.
Electrical engineer here.
We always use the term master drive and slave drive when we have control two motors coupled in tandem.
Or in other practical situations.
I’m aware that everybody is easily offended these days, but never heard about this in engineering.
I think it is ridiculous, i would not change this.
But it is just my humble opinion.
Will share this with my colleagues, lets see what they think.
I will get back to you.
The problem with “everyone getting offended” partly stems from the transition to a more global culture (less European-male dominated). Engineering and science is unlikely to stand still as the world changes.
I only hope that, reasonable arguments will be found to change the terminology used to describe the relationship between “controlling” and “controlled” system units …
Regardless of a context related to engineering disciplines or, not …
And, IMHO, even if the engineering terminology is changed, the larger human problem, regardless of the terminology used to describe it, will not be changed …
[HR][/HR]I can hardly wait – there are possibly people on this planet who are offended by the idea of an inert, non-human, object controlling other inert, non-human, objects … >:)