It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
Can’t we just change “slave” to “servant” and carry on?
You could but he has a point. The last time I used master/slave was for IDE drives which was 15+ years ago, and even then only because I happened upon a really old system using IDE drives.
The only thing I see left is “Master” by itself, like master branch. But that makes me think of like a jujitsu master which sounds really cool lol.
Yeah, that definition of “master” is different than master/slave from what I can tell. Think the master copy of an audio recording. There are plenty of perfectly legit uses of “master,” but there’s no reason to use master/slave in this day and age. It was stupid to start doing so to begin with.
Like the Digmaster™.
Especially with how we say releases are “cut” from the master branch, it makes a ton of sense.
Why retcon something that hasn’t been used in over a decade? ATA is dead.
you could, but the connotations of master/slave have been integrated heavily over the years, and changing it willy nilly doesn’t really accomplish much since we’re talking about moving electrons through wires, or light through glass. So i don’t think anybody really cares about it at the end of the day.
Realistically though, very little designed architectures these days operate on a master slave meta. At best there’s one “primary” and several “secondary” or “follower” nodes behind it. Or some kind of democratically elected process for handling that.
Sure, but if you’re gonna change it at all you might as well pick a better metaphor.