It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • Andrew
    link
    fedilink
    23 months ago

    I seem to have stumbled into an argument that people are more passionate about than me. I mentioned I’d seen ‘active/passive’ used (in computer networking), and in that context, it ‘seems alright’ (in the sense of actively giving demands, vs. passively accepting them [and doing what it’s told, of course])

    If someone has made good-faith request not to use certain terminology (like Master/Slave), then I’m generally more interested in finding acceptable alternatives than I am in dismissing their concerns outright. If, at the end of a proper search for alternatives, nothing suitable can be found, then fair enough. I’d question the idea that it’s really impossible to find something else though, but - for now at least - I’m sure that Dom/Sub isn’t it.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      3
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Same here - I’m more interested in a suitable alternative than to argue whether they are justified in their concerns.

      I don’t think there’s a single right answer though. This terminology is used in many scenarios, each a little different and each with a potentially different answer

      • Most git distributions now default to “main” and some variation of branch. It was a trivial change and seems as meaningful.
      • Jenkins changed from master-slave, to controller-agent (or node). I’m still getting used to it but no big deal.
      • Many DB or service distributed systems changed from master-slave(s) to primary-replica(s) and that also works