It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
I’ve seen ‘Active / Passive’ used, that seems alright. There’s plenty of alternative terms to use without borrowing terminology from sexual roleplay.
Anyway, the Sub is supposed to be the one that’s actually in control for this kind of thing (otherwise you’d just be in an abusive relationship), so that confuses things when you start trying to applying it elsewhere.
The issue is acronyms; there’s millions of products, schematics, datasheets, and manuals that refer to them as MISO and MOSI with no further explanation. Any new standard that doesn’t fit runs into the 15-competing-standards problem, and ought to be followed by an “AKA MISO” every time it’s used.
I’ve seen “Main” and “Secondary” be used exactly for this reason, as they keep the same first letter so don’t require acronyms to be changed.
Just have to find synonyms that begin with the same letters, possibly in different languages.
Other countries all use the English terms.
Except for the French, probably.
Anyway, the Sub is supposed to be the one that’s actually in control for this kind of thing
I think there’s a better way to put that. It’s often called a power exchange. Both people involved can rescind consent at any time, and there’s also negotiation that happens before scenes to set up expectations and limits, but I don’t know too many subs that want to be in control of a scene. My experience is they want to give up control in a way that is safe.
Yeah, you’re right, that was a clumsy word choice. My experience is mostly from watching The Duke of Burgundy tbh
I’ve seen ‘Active / Passive’ used, that seems alright
That’s not always an accurate description though.
Consider a redundant two node database system where the second node holds a mirrored copy of the first node. Typically, one node, let’s call it node1, will accept reads and writes from clients and the other node, let’s say node2, will only accept reads from clients but will also implement all writes it receives from node2. That’s how they stay in sync.
In this scenario node2 is not “passive”. It does perform work: it serves reads to clients, and it performs writes, but only the writes received from node1. You could say that node2 slavishly follows what node1 dictates and that node1 is authorative. Master/slave more accurately describes this than active/passive.
There’s plenty of alternative terms to use without borrowing terminology from sexual roleplay.
Do I have news for you …
the Sub is supposed to be the one that’s actually in control
This is a myth, presumably meant to be reassuring to subs that are new to BDSM, at the expense of risk awareness. In principle the sub is no more “in control” than the dom is, and in practice they are often significantly less so.
Active / passive means something different.
Master / slave means one thing tells the other thing what to do, and the other one does it without question. The slave is not passive in performing the task.
It’s a relationship that should never occur between humans, but it does occur with machines. The terms describe what is happening accurately. Other synonyms are approximations and lead to confusion in a field where confusions cause bugs / failures and depending on what you’re working on, that could put lives in danger. Do you really want such confusion around the systems of an airliner, where everything has redundancy, master/slave relationships are common and something being passive means “it’s only monitoring what’s going on”?
You want more Boeings? Shit like this is a good way of getting there.
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.
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
Wait until you find out how many programmers don’t even speak English. They must not be able to understand any of this if it’s so confusing to native speakers, right?
The consequence of updating language is not plane crashes. You need to update the version of the human interaction API that you’re using.
No it doesn’t sound bad, words don’t need to be thrown away forever just because they’ve been used to describe unfair treatment. I’m so sick of having to relabel so many things that are so far divorced from the social issues they are used to describe. It’s so pointless and has no impact, the code doesn’t care which is master and which is the slave for they are simply descriptive labels.
Are we supposed to never use the words master or slave ever again?? What’s next?
My dev friends, no matter their race, all say the exact same thing. We still use master over main, come at us I guess.
Honestly, while the controversy is incredibly stupid, it’s not something to get worked up about. Not good for your heart 😜
You don’t have to relabel anything, just keep using old names for old stuff and maybe consider switching to main for your next GitHub project? It’s honestly not that big of a deal.
It’s all good and well until you start working in a repo that has both master and main branches for some reason, and it is not clear which is actually the master/main branch.
Then you’re working in an idiotic repo. You could just as well have have a master and an actual_master branch. Similar idiocy.
I work for s company that suddenly asked to rename a lot of stuff. This had consequences. It cost time, money, and created a disconnect between internal to the dev vocabulary that couldn’t be changed easily and user facing vocabulary. Also we were lucky but this could gave broken some long used API that we are proud not to version because the policy we have internally is “we will NEVER break the API”. And so far, for 8 years we still haven’t.
The problem with these token activism is that it’s hollow in content. The intent might be good, but the action is almost pure virtue signalling.
Slavoj Zizek pointed out in multiple interviews that there’s a pervert self-reflectiveness in the self-censorship: privileged people “enjoy” being guilty of their privilege, so it’s more about themselves rather than the people they claim to represent. “Sorry, but you were naive and unaware of people being racist when they use these words, so let me stop them and now you are protected (by me) in an inclusive atmosphere.”
A related radical freedom situation as an inverse to the above is that when friends get really close, even using racist slurs is treated as a gesture of intimacy, rather than racism. In an ideal world, the context in the public discourse would be so strong that even racist words lose their racist meaning (“oh, so you are joking as well”) rather than the opposite (assuming there’s ubiquitous “hidden” racism in the use of a word, even when there’s clearly none).
Another critique is that it presents itself as a substitute of real solutions. Instead of addressing real problems, it provides a simple “everyday” solution, very much similar to the recycling movement. Of course we need to recycle, but we should be aware that it’s not a substitute of radical real actions (e.g. stopping the big oil).
master over main
That one is the most stupid one too, because master in git doesn’t even refer to a master/slave relationship. It refers to a different meaning of the word master, namely “an original from which copies can be made”, as in master recording or master key. See 5b in the Merriam-Webster dictionary. And that’s how it’s used in git: any new branches are derived from master. Main just does not have the same nuance, because it does not imply a relationship between the branches, just that it’s somehow more important than the others.
But of course, the real reason it was changed is because for companies like github it’s easier to give in to the crazies who demand this than to fight them.
Is it not the main working branch? Git is a system of change not just recording change. When you start a new project, do you open a new branch or create a whole new repository? That’s not rhetorical I’m genuinely curious.
Is it not the main working branch
No it is not. On large distributed projects for which git was designed, you typically don’t directly work on main/master but you create a working branch to do your changes, and when they are ready you merge them to main/master.
There are many types of git workflows, but main/master usually contains the code that is deployed to production or the latest stable release and not some work in progress.
When you start a new project, do you open a new branch or create a whole new repository?
You have to define “project” for that.
- Is your project a change to existing code -> new branch, merge to main/master when done
- Is your project something new that stands entirely on its own? -> new repository
you don’t work on main/master, you make a branch to work in, and then merge your changes back into master/main
I’m a dev, and I’m the opposite. At my work, we use main over master. I thought it was a little silly when we first switched, but now I’m used to it. It’s an arbitrary label anyway – could easily use trunk/branch from SVN or release/develop or any number of other labels to keep track of code.
Hell, we got a new dev on the team a month or two ago, and he tends to name things ‘feat/do-the-thing’ instead of ‘feature/make-it-go’.
It’s not as big a deal as people online make it out to be.
unfair treatment.
We’re talking about slavery here.
sick of having to relabel
It’s not that hard…to be accommodating.
divorced from the social issues
from your point of view
the code doesn’t care
You’re right. Call it a controller and agent. I know naming is hard, but we’re smart enough to apply our lexicon.
never use the words master or slave ever again? What’s next??
Ah, the slippery slope fallacy.
We still use master over main
The default for new repositories on GitHub has been main for awhile now. You would have had to put in effort to change it to something else. You’re a stick in the mud.
The default for git repositories is still master. Not to be the “real programmers only use CLI” guy, but I feel like git init isn’t too hipster.
…which you get a multiline message telling you to change your ways (Linus doesn’t break UX)…every time you init…weird.
$ git init
hint: Using 'master' as the name for the initial branch. This default branch name
hint: is subject to change. To configure the initial branch name to use in all
hint: of your new repositories, which will suppress this warning, call:
hint:
hint: git config --global init.defaultBranch <name>
hint:
hint: Names commonly chosen instead of 'master' are 'main', 'trunk' and
hint: 'development'. The just-created branch can be renamed via this command:
hint:
hint: git branch -m <name>
The default has been main for awhile.
This is the case in our current version of git (git version 2.28. 0). As of October 1, 2020, any new repository you create on GitHub.com will use main as the default branch.
March 2021 for gitlab
Fuck I don’t get your downvotes, you’re right. I get people want to vent but in the greater scheme of things having to use different words to be a smidge more inclusive isn’t that big of a deal or effort considering what some of us do to help our friends be accepted.
It’s so weird that so many people are calling being accommodating in such a small way “performative” or whatever! I think some people just can’t handle change and blame others for it.
unfair treatment.
We’re talking about slavery here.
sick of having to relabel
It’s not that hard…to be accommodating.
divorced from the social issues
from your point of view
the code doesn’t care
You’re right. Call it a controller and agent. I know naming is hard, but we’re smart enough to apply our lexicon.
never use the words master or slave ever again? What’s next??
Ah, the slippery slope fallacy.
We still use master over main
The default for repositories on GitHub has been main. You would have had to put in effort to change it to something else. You’re a stick in the mud.
I remember back in the late 90s being in college. I brought my girlfriend to class one day. She raised her hand after the professer was explaining Master/Slave roles. Keep in mind, I’m white. She’s black. She’s not enrolle
d in this class AT ALL.
So the professer sees this, and says “Yes, you there, girl I’ve never seen in 4 months of this class”
And all she said was “Master and Slave drives? That sounds sexy!”
The whole class facepalmed.
I personally think the whole backlash against master/slave in the computing world is people looking for something in their sphere of knowledge to be offended about so they can feel like they are part of “a movement”. Even if some mustache twirling racist was the first “computer guy” to come up with the term and meant it to be offensive, that is not how sane people view it today. So some of the advocates for changing it should stop trying to build it up into some Pizzagate-like conspiracy against black/brown people.
Having said that, I also don’t have any strong attachments to the phrasing either. Phase it out in favor of something that makes everyone happy if that keeps the peace. It is just a term that made sense at the time to describe something. There is nothing stopping us from changing it to something else now if we so choose. It is not erasing heritage or some such nonsense. If anything, people having strong hangups about it if there are better or equally as good terms out there that doesn’t make people uncomfortable is far weirder in my opinion.
The only thing I have somewhat strong opinions about is making it some high priority to go back and erase those terms from solutions that already exist. Change them as you update things, sure, but why create extra work to update something old that is currently working if the only change is not functional and just verbiage. Seems like wasted effort that could be better directed and solving functional issues to me.
I use ‘main’ on git instead of ‘master’ now (forced to change at work) and its shorter and snappier IMO.
But yeah there are more important problems out there.
The master in master branch is, I’d assume, from the idea of Master copy which refers to the original of something, eg a recording, drawing, etc. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/master-copy
I’m not hugely tied to the word, and things change … So meh.
While I agree with your assumption, I think main is less vague. Master can be interpreted several ways, including an offensive one. So while I agree with other commenter in that it’s unnecessary to go back and change things retroactively, but just setting the default branch name for new repos in your version control to main is a fair thing to ask IMO.
I insist on renaming main to master every time I create a repo on GitLab. Master forever, even if it doesn’t make much sense.
So you are not passively against progress, you are doing it actively.
Has very much “vinyl is better than modern media” vibes.
while in some ways I can see your point, I would just have a hard time saying this in a work meeting here in the deep south with black colleagues present
most sociologists and some psychologists would refer to this as a subconscious, or subdued form of racism.
it is kind of silly a the end of the day. How a terminology originally referring to a power dynamic. Has been so excessively ingrained in relation to race (which isn’t very historically relevant) such that even using these terms in a generic capacity, not relating to in any form what would constitute this “negative slavery” concept, that it makes people feel uneasy, summarizes rather weirdly, the human condition.
maybe this is just my autism speaking, but i see so little resemblance contextually, and almost zero historical relevance that i see almost no connection between the words and the practices at hand. Like you could do a wikipedia speedrun from technology to slavery, but you could also do that from any topic, to slavery. Everything is so interconnected there is nothing pure anymore.
Isn’t the inverse - “I asked x number of black people and they were OK with it” or even “I assume y% number of black people are ok with it” subject to the same criticism?
I am white so we’re probably getting to the edge of propriety in this conversation.
this is actually a terminology that i would be interested on seeing the historical context for actually. My assumption has always been light based “whitelist referring to a well lit room, where as blacklist refers to a completely dark room” making things easy/hard to find as a a result.
It could also literally just be a coincidence and it simply sounded better for the allow list to be whitelisted, and the deny list to be blacklisted, humans have weird connections to words like that.
people looking for something in their sphere of knowledge to be offended about so they can feel like they are part of “a movement”
I always thought it was just people looking for something in their sphere of influence that they could do to make a difference, no matter how small.
The computing world is known for being hostile toward most out-groups, and I’ll welcome any effort to change that, no matter how small and how silly it seems. The real change needs to be in the people but perhaps being cognizant of such details will help remind us all to be more open and welcoming
Welcome to Orwell-ville.
PS: im most amused by those who think the USA incented slavery.
The US may not have invented it, but there are still people in the US who are affected by it today.
Americans care about slavery for the same reason that Germans care about Nazis.
^
Ya know what gets my goat? Right Wing Chuds who ask why white people don’t get credit for ending slavery…
I dunno, why is it that when I point a gun in someone’s face and decide to shoot him in the leg instead, do I not get credit for preventing his murder?
Oh because he’s worse off than he would have been if I had done nothing at all? Because the only reason he was ever in danger of being killed was because of MY actions?
Congratulations, you’ve solved the riddle.
Some white people have generational wealth to fall back on No black people have that because the Klan burnt down black wallstreet.
Given the current US prison system and Germany’s stance on Israel, that sentence might mean something very different from what you had in mind
Or just use the existing terms. People will find issues with just abuut anything.
Leaving aside the problematic nature of the existing terms, the result was that people actually thought a little more about the relationships the things had and started using better/more precise terminology for the relationships: primary/secondary, active/hot/cold, parent/child, etc.
Net positive all round.
Woah there. You’re using about 25% more of your brain than the rest of the internet. We’re gonna need you to tone that reasonability down a bit.
I look forward to setting up my next polyamorous network connection. I can wait for the commands nmcli con choke me daddy ens1 thrupple0
