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

  • Andrew@piefed.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    166
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • SomeoneSomewhere@lemmy.nz
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • zero_spelled_with_an_ecks@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • orrk@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        the connotation in that the master is in control and the slave having no control, and ironically is only a racial issue in the US

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      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 …

    • cacheson 💤@piefed.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • wewbull@feddit.uk
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Andrew@piefed.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        3 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.

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          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
      • 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.

    • copd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Also pub/sub is already estsblished and used as common computing abbreviations

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    148
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    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.

      • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • MummifiedClient5000@feddit.dk
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          40
          ·
          3 months ago

          Then you’re working in an idiotic repo. You could just as well have have a master and an actual_master branch. Similar idiocy.

          • ScreamingFirehawk@feddit.uk
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            11
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            It only takes one person to fuck it up. I agree it’s stupid, but introducing a conflicting standard increases the chances of someone fucking it up in the name of progressiveness. Needless to say I killed off the main branch that someone one had tried to make to replace the master branch.

          • SirQuackTheDuck@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            A place I used to work at had that… The corp had rolled out a non-delete policy with something akin to *master, so when someone made a abrv_master branch it got protected and couldn’t be deleted anymore.

      • yogsototh@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

    • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      42
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Riven@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        22
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • warbond@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • orrk@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            3 months ago

            or it’s just literally performative and doesn’t actually change anything about the realities of being POC in America other than making (ironically) a bunch of white people feel good about themselves.

      • Tyoda@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        14
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          …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>
          
          • Tyoda@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            Gonna be honest, I don’t think I ever read that. I think I usually just do git status immediately after to see if all’s well.

        • femtech@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                can you point where ANYTHING is recommended at all there?

                Cause it simply says that you can change the name. But “master” is the default. That doesn’t sound like a “recommendation” at all. But just making people aware since some repositories try to force things like “Main”. Almost like the repo you’re using might be enforcing shit that Git in of itself doesn’t give a shit about.

                • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  which will suppress this warning

                  “I’m going to be annoying you until you do something about it” It is recommending that you take some sort of action, that choice is up to you as the user. In fact, the older way of disabling the warning was called advice.defaultBranchName

                  AFAIK git is still Linus Trovalds’ project and one thing he is known for is “you dont fuckin break user space”. That is acknowledged in the pull request https://github.com/git/git/pull/921

                  “will minimize disruption for Git’s users and will include appropriate deprecation periods”.

                  Linus is also a fuck-your-feelings kind of guy so deprecation_period == linus_date_of_death. No, I’m not implying Linus is racist/bigot, just that he feels that strongly about breaking user experience.

                  Git in of itself doesn’t give a shit about.

                  You’re right…and that’s why its unbelievable to me how some people are still (it has been nearly 4 years since that PR above) resistant to change this one little thing. This is just the initial branch that we’re talking about here. Git doesn’t care if you:

                  ﬌ git init
                  Initialized empty Git repository in /home/xxxxxx/tmp/.git/
                  
                  ﬌ touch foo && git add foo && git commit -am "foo"
                  [main (root-commit) 9c74dd1] foo
                   1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
                   create mode 100644 foo
                  
                  ﬌ git branch -a            
                  * main
                  
                  ﬌ git checkout -b bar
                  Switched to a new branch 'bar'
                  
                  ﬌ git branch -d main
                  Deleted branch main (was 9c74dd1).
                  
                  ﬌ git branch -a
                  * bar
                  
                  ﬌ git log      
                  commit 9c74dd18d493fec727e6ce9e4ba71ed356dd970d (HEAD -> bar)
                  Author: Butters
                  Date:   Thu Aug 22 00:14:44 2024 -0400
                  
                      foo
                  
            • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              No shit? Let me guess; you’re still using git like Linus intended it to be, decentralized, by emailing each other tar.gz’s

              • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                No. I’m just not willing to attribute a COMPANY as the sole owner/stakeholder in a protocol that honestly has very little to do with them.

                Just because Github does something, doesn’t mean that they represent git.

                • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  I just used the most popular/known example. Personally I haven’t liked GitHub since Micro$oft bought them. I’m ol’ school, 25 years in the biz so M$ really really leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth.

                  I’ll answer your other question in the other thread.

    • Phoenix3875@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      35
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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).

    • Rentlar@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      32
      ·
      3 months ago

      Right? I get that langauge evolves and things go in and out of fashion, but this self-censoring for things completely unrelated to the original or derogatory meanings is kind of a pointless exercise to me.

    • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

      • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        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.

        • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          13
          ·
          3 months ago

          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
          • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Ah we develop the same way. There’s testing then staging then prod is final review and is then finally merged to Main after documentation. Main branch is protected and merges are gated by review. There’s no need for master terminology there.

            • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              There’s no need for master terminology there

              Nobody said there is a need, you could call it foo or bar and it would still work. It just that master more accurately describes what it is. Main for example does not describe a derivative relationship, master does.

              Also, master in this context is totally unrelated to slavery so I could also just as easily say that there was no need to replace the existing terminology either. It doesn’t solve any real world problems of historic or currently existing slavery, and it doesn’t make anyone’s life better. The only reasons why it was done were appeasement and virtue signalling.

              • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                3 months ago

                Sure, so if there’s no need for any certain terminology outside of an agreed upon definition what does it matter if it’s called master or main or unicorn farts? Why care about Master at all?

                • DefederateLemmyMl@feddit.nl
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  9
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  3 months ago

                  Why care about Master at all?

                  I’ve already explained all my reasons, but I’ll reiterate. To summarize I basically have five main issues with it

                  1. The change was done in response to attempts at language policing and bullying by a vocal and militant minority. Giving into it is a form of appeasement towards an unreasonable demand.

                  2. The change retroactively modifies a terminology that was already agreed upon. Like, if git sprung into existence today, not many people would have an issue with it if they would call it main or trunk or primary from the get go. But that’s not what happened. Git was released in 2005 and it used master terminology. As a consequence, many existing repositories also use master. Now when someone is working with branches, like doing merges or pull requests, they suddenly have to remember: oh in this repository it is main, but in that repository it is still master. Or they have go out of their way to modify decade old repositories, potentially breaking all kinds of behind the scenes CICD stuff. Or they have to go out of their way to revert the default on all systems that they’re working on back to master. In any case, this change is a source of errors and wasted effort for zero net good.

                  3. It does no good in the real world other than making do-gooders feel good about themselves, and giving a capitalist entity some PR to appear more progressive than they are. We all still have masters, existing slaves are not freed, no historical wrongs of slavery or inequality are righted.

                  4. It’s a misguided change in this case because the word master in this context doesn’t even have a relationship to slavery. Just like a master degree you may hold, or a master key or a master recording of your favorite album have no bearing on slavery. Note that there are no “slave” branches in git.

                  5. Finally, in the case of git, master is simply more accurate than main because it carries a nuance (derivativeness) that main does not.

              • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                3 months ago

                In our environment Prod is only a holding area, the change/feature/bugfix is already approved for production, once the change is documented then the merge happens into main and Prod is consumed.

                Our “working” branches are ephemeral.

          • PlexSheep@infosec.pub
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            In fact, many projects forbid pushing to master entirely and only allow reviewed merging to the master. Then, every time the master changes, a new release of the software is made (either manually or automatically with CI/CD)

        • orrk@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          you don’t work on main/master, you make a branch to work in, and then merge your changes back into master/main

          • aodhsishaj@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            3 months ago

            Respectfully, I can do whatever the fuck I want. That’s the point of git. If I want to branch my way down to a stack overflow due to running out of free memory my system will very happily let me do that.

    • elephantium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

    • Sinthesis@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      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.

    • pop@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      No one told you to throw away anything. If it works for you then go wild. No one else cares what you do in private or a with your “dev friends”.

      I for one love shorts words to get meaning across. “main” was just sweet, the social issue thing was a good to have.

  • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    89
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

  • flop_leash_973@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    84
    ·
    3 months ago

    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.

    • Valmond@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Scrollone@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                3 months ago

                considering the way that native/aboriginal people view the land that they inhabit, it’s pretty common for certain geographic places to be considered “sacred” or ritualistic. Prior to the colonization of these lands these people just existed, living on their land, little to no concept of “westernized land rights” until the western people showed up and colonized, killing a lot of them in the process.

                And obviously there were fights, as per usual it’s the one constant behind who holds what land. But beyond fighting for your territory in a literal sense. Isn’t it funny that we all live on a piece of land that we bought and own or lease/rent from the local government? Who in turn is the legal rights holder of that land specifically. We as individual land owners aren’t fighting wars, it’s the government in this example who is the “haha i killed you it’s my land now” entity. Only to turn around and then go “here, you can have this but only if you give me money.”

                Aside from the little slips of paper that we have, which are so called “binding agreements” between two or more individuals. The only thing that defines who owns what land, is who defends that title of ownership most successfully. And in this case, it’s the government. But the concept of land ownership itself is fucking stupid to begin with. How much land do we own? How do we own it? to what level of ownership does having a plot of land constitute? There are so many questions, and very few are answered.

                You may own a piece of land, but if you have a river running through that property, you don’t own the river. It’s not a thing that you can do. You could also own a piece of land, say for example a random sand dune in indiana somewhere. And then consume that sand dune in the process of making funny blue colored glass for electrical insulators. Do you own the sand anymore? Do you own the land where the sand once was? Does that piece of land even exist anymore?

          • Scrollone@feddit.it
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            It makes sense because “master copy” is the name of the “official” version of something. Nothing to do with slavery by the way.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              It’s already not the master copy if you have release branches or tags, but it is the “main” branch 🤪

            • silly goose meekah@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              But “Main” is more clear, and putting in extra effort to basically just piss off politically (over)correct people doesn’t make any sense, and is kinda weird tbh

          • NostraDavid@programming.dev
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            I don’t know about Scrollone, but I hate it when corporations force me to change for the sake of change. Options to change is fine (in case someone doesn’t like the default), of course.

            And no, “inclusivity” is not the actual reason, as that’s already covered by adding the option to change (which again, is completely fine)

        • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          So you are not passively against progress, you are doing it actively.

          Has very much “vinyl is better than modern media” vibes.

      • TheGalacticVoid@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        20
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          ^

          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.

          • maniii@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            3 months ago

            And red-lining districts, and bull-dozing new black towns for highways. etc etc etc

            There are so many instances of going around laws just to disadvantage black/coloured people.

            Pulling the ladder up after themselves and telling others to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

            Many things were wrong, but language is where people draw the line, like … c’mon. Using slurs I can understand it is uncouth offensive. But master/slave in technical terms ??? NO ONE means the original meanings unless they are also crazy!

            • Queen HawlSera@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              3 months ago

              I keep trying to tell people that White Privilege doesn’t mean you have an easy life because of your skin color, as a honky myself I’d be heavily offended if anyone legitimately believed something so naive as the idea that I lived on easy street. That my lack of any thing even coming close to a tan put me in some elite club. I very much do not as I live paycheck to paycheck, often having to buy essentials like food and gas on credit, whilst having to live with family and use food banks to get by.

              However, no one’s out here actually arguing that being white makes my life easy because that’s not what white privilege is.

              White Privilege simply means that out of all the things working against me in this dog-eat-dog world of late stage capitalism and constant culture war, my skin color is not one of them.

              • maniii@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                4
                ·
                3 months ago

                Agreed. The systemic exclusion of POC from benefits and advantages was rolled back just as POCs were becoming independent. It affected BOTH communities , POCs AND economically dis-advantaged equally.

                So you had a substantial population with severe economic and political disadvantages being relentessly targetted by those in power.

                Hence, the current top-1% control 80% upwards of everything.

        • AwesomeLowlander@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          ·
          3 months ago

          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

      • desktop_user
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        we may not have invented it but we certainly invested in it and probably incested it as well.

    • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        3 months ago

        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.

        • funkless_eck@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            yeah they’re both equally susceptible to the same problem. Ultimately though, one of the things we can best do to examine something like this is relate it to other similar concepts/problems. PTSD for example, hearing a certain word or phrase may make you deeply uncomfortable or uneasy. It’s not recommended to simply cope with that, or stop hearing those terms. It’s recommended to learn how to work with and against it, in order to become a more functional human. And you could argue a similar thing in regards to master/slave terminology being used.

            You could also expand into the general normalization of a concept. For example curse words are only bad because we deem them to be. If a white guy explains the architecture of a piece of software using master/slave terminology to a group of people which includes black people, specifically in the country of america. It might be weird, but realistically, it probably shouldn’t be. Why? It’s simple, there’s nothing that prevents this from being a presentation from a black person explaining an architecture using a master/slave architecture in the exact same manner as the white guy, to a room of people that includes white people. Is that weird? I see no reason for it to be weird there either.

            The entire reason the master/slave terminology is frowned upon is because of the power balance in that specific situation, however if there is no power imbalance, it’s debatable as to whether it matters or not. It’s perfectly fine in the BDSM space even between white/black people because it’s a consented accepted terminology in that specific context. So we could even extend the social acceptableness of it based on who consents to experiencing that dialog.

            There are a lot of ways to look at and think about things, ultimately it’s probably worth not thinking all too hard about most things as they don’t lead to much.

            I am white so we’re probably getting to the edge of propriety in this conversation.

            definitely, but that’s part of the fun, if you can’t discuss things in a philosophical manner whats the point of even asking the question in the first place.

            • AA5B@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              Or isn’t the other half of that …… if you have a toxic personality and wish to change that, there may be no single fix but to pay more attention to many small habits contributing to that toxicity.

              This whole conversation reminds me of the similar one many years ago, about crude jokes and pictures/calendars in the workplace. The dominant population said exactly the same things. However now we’re all more professional and work is much less toxic, not just for women, minorities, people with different preferences, but also less toxic for us white male heteros as well. We all won that one

              • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                3 months ago

                yeah that’s certainly an option, but defining a toxic personality or a toxic personality trait in it of itself is a really hard and difficult process, and doing that externally is arguably worse. As it’s rife for gaslighting and abuse, but that’s a different story.

                As for crude jokes, if you mean like, sexual harassment i think that’s different. I think crude language in general is perfectly reasonable, though the trick is obviously being able to read the room. There’s a fine line between hanging with the friends, and then being a fucking asshole.

        • ultramaven@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          Bro I fucking said “whitelist” in a meeting and got so many glares, fuck all of these fucking uneducated pieces of shit that can only punch down because they know nothing except “DATS RACIST”

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          3 months ago

          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.

          • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            If I had to guess, it’s just the general “white=good black=bad” which itself is likely related to day/night.

            But it’s easy to imagine a bouncer at a club with a list of whites allowed in and blacks that aren’t. I don’t think that’s the etymology, but it’s also important to remember that language is alive and words can take on unintended meaning.

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              3 months ago

              But it’s easy to imagine a bouncer at a club with a list of whites allowed in and blacks that aren’t. I don’t think that’s the etymology, but it’s also important to remember that language is alive and words can take on unintended meaning.

              that seems like an oddly specific origination for that specific term, but it’s certainly a possibility. But as with words being alive and taking on unintended meanings, it’s also equally likely that it became skin color agnostic at some point, and the term stuck because it was already being used.

                • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  3 months ago

                  yeah no i understand, i’m just saying that’s a potential point where i could’ve originated and then morphed over time. Even if it was founded on race originally, it’s not super likely it would matter today in any broader contexts.

    • AA5B@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      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

  • okamiueru@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    71
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    Until proven otherwise, I assume either ignorance or malicious intentions by those who want to rename these “problematic” terms. It does nothing to improve the actual issues.

    The false pretense of having done something, is worse than doing nothing. It’s just noise.

    To be clear: I don’t mind the changing of terms. I’m too old to care about trivial stuff like main vs master. But if the reasoning for such a change is dumb and potentially harmful, you’ve lost my respect.

    • cheddar@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      26
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Until proven otherwise, I assume either ignorance or malicious intentions by those who want to rename these “problematic” terms. It does nothing to improve the actual issues.

      That’s because the goal is not to solve the actual issue, but to feel better because they did something. Or to avoid noise generated by lunatics online.

    • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      3 months ago

      Until a couple of years ago, we had a brand of cheese called ‘Coon’, here in Australia.

      The word isn’t used as a slur over here, and the brand was simply named after the founder about 150 years back.

      But it was getting increasingly on the nose as cultural influences from the US and everywhere kept seeping in, and it reached a point where it pretty much needed an excuse or at least an explanation.

      So they renamed it; now it’s ‘Cheer’.

      And at the time, there was all kinds of pearl-clutching about the malicious / disingenuous / officious / vapidly-offended / white-knighting / attention-seeking / etc / etc ‘woke crowd’ stomping in and making them change everything when it was perfectly good and harmless and stuff.

      Six months later, nobody gave a single shit any more. Nobody died as a result or was even mildly inconvenienced, no great cultural traditions were lost, and contrary to several predictionsm newly-empowered wokeocrats have not risen from the shadows to re-gender everyone or whatever. It’s that cheese with the blue white and green label, nobody reads it anyway.

      My point is that small token changes cost virtually nothing, and even if they achieve little in and of themselves, the mere fact of people being willing to make them is of benefit. Small courtesies, you know? Returning your shopping cart. Smiling at passing dogs. It models kindness and consideration, and promotes the idea that those things have value.

      Which is not to suggest that we must avoid giving offense at all consts; far from it. I’m one of those stereotypicallly abrasive genX types raised on ideals of free speech, punk rock, uncomfortable truths and loudly pointing out the elephant in the room no matter how many toes get stepped on. But when there isn’t some burning issue that needs to be addressed, niceties be damned… then yeah, small courtesies. Give people that extra bit of room even if they don’t strictly needed. It’s nice to be nice.

      Look back a handful of decades at all those cultural relics that your grandparents considered harmless and invisible. Asking people to drop them may have attracted ridicule and suspicion at the time, but looking back at some of them… oh dear god, really?

      Hell, I remember The Black And White Minstrel Show on TV, and if you don’t remember it yourself, it’s far worse than you’re imagining.

      I like the world better without things like that, even the little seemingly-trivial ones, and even if it seems like empy virtue-signalling while you’re cleaning them up.

      • Lets_Eat_Grandma@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        3 months ago

        TheBananaKing is offensive. It is a reference to Banana Republics, you know the system where corporations marginalize an entire populace and make them produce their product for profit. You should really change your username. It’s trivial and nobody will care if you change it.

        Obviously I do think this is as absurd as asking a company to change it’s name which was named after the founder, but you went there and presented the argument for it. I can at least understand moving away from master/slave in computing especially in future products and revisions but making someone change their business name which is named after the founder’s is ludicrous.

        That being said, the only reason why the company changed the name was because it gave them good PR in the form of free advertising- just imagine all the headlines. Since you have no upside to changing yours, I know you won’t do it. Humanity is full of virtue signaling hypocrites who are just out for themselves.

        • lolcatnip@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Did you know there’s a chain of clothing stores in the US named Banana Republic? Every time I think about it, it blows my mind that they could have chosen any name, and that’s what they went with.

      • elephantium@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        Great response, thanks for writing this. I live in the US, and your Coon -> Cheer cheese reminds me of Land O’Lakes butter – there was a brouhaha over a decision to remove a Native American woman from the packaging. Same result, it’s still in the butter section of the market.

        My point is that small token changes cost virtually nothing

        Well-put. I’ve been in the position of complaining about this type of change before, and this is a perfect counterpoint to that mindset. I’ve often said “What do we want? Police to face accountability when they commit crimes! What do we actually get? We’re going to use the term ‘main’ instead of ‘master’ for programming things!”

        What we so often forget in that moment of “What, I have to re-learn some terminology? Ugh, friction!” is exactly your point about small courtesies. Something doesn’t have to be a Big Damn Deal to be worthwhile.

        • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          there was a brouhaha over a decision to remove a Native American woman from the packaging. Same result, it’s still in the butter section of the market.

          Sure same result in that Indians are now LESS representated in society. We’re seeing the Indian populations push back now on the idea that all the symbolism surrounding them should be removed. Example: https://www.newsnationnow.com/us-news/sports/native-american-organization-redskins-name/

        • AA5B@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          Land O’Lakes butter – there was a brouhaha over a decision to remove a Native American woman from the packaging

          Maybe I just have no awareness but I have a hard time seeing how this was offensive. Master-slave, sure; coon, sure; those are directly something negative. However a Native American women is not inherently negative and they are using it as a positive symbol of something. What about this is offensive?

          Bottom line, I realize I’m not the one offended nor am I the one marketing it, so it really doesn’t impact me, but I also don’t understand

          • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Using an ethnic stereotype as a logo/mascot is a bit whiffy, no? Ramp it up a bit and take a look at the Robertson’s Jam ‘golliwog’ logo.

            Maybe a different degree, but certainly the same smell. It’s just not a good look in this day and age.

        • TheBananaKing@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          I’ve often said “What do we want? Police to face accountability when they commit crimes! What do we actually get? We’re going to use the term ‘main’ instead of ‘master’ for programming things!”

          The other thing is that the big stuff is shored up by all the small stuff.

          The reason you can’t get police held accountable for crimes, ferinstance, is because there’s a hundred shitty racist / sexist / classist / etc attitudes locking down the idea that the police are both besieged by and protecting us from an underclass of people who deserve neither compassion, rights or justice. Look at the people leaping on the ‘he was no angel’ bandwagon, for god’s sake.

          If you want to topple the big overt heinous idea, you need to wash away the soil its roots are sunk into and that’s banked up round its trunk making it look like an inherent part of the landscape.

          A spoonful at a time, if need be. It all helps.

          • elephantium@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            3 months ago

            Interesting metaphor. I’ve never really gotten that idea – I’ve never seen the connection demonstrated between the “big stuff” and seemingly innocuous things like ‘main’ vs. ‘master’.

            Also, a lot of this feels misplaced. IMO, the root problem is one of attitude where the minorities are viewed as less-human, not deserving of equal treatment or equal rights. Change will happen as those attitudes shift. I haven’t seen a connection demonstrated between those attitudes and…well, pretty much any terminology issue that’s come up in recent memory.

    • kameecoding@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      There is stuff that was bad, white/blacklist doesn’t make much sense, when the universal “code” for allow/disallow are green and red. Allow and deny list are much better name.

      Master main, is fine by me, doesnt make much sense to call it master, its only the main branch nothing else.

      Shit that didnt make sense was stuff like removing community episodes from netflix, because or “blackface” without any consideration of why its there or whether it has value, just blanket ban, it was stupid af.

      • sudneo@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        Totally discussing useless stuff here, but green and red to me give the feeling of temporary actions (and possibly alternating). Intuitively sounds more like slowing and speeding than it does permanently blocking or allowing something.

        Black and white have the polar opposite meaning. At this point allowlist and blocklist might be a simpler solution to the “problem”.

    • osaerisxero@kbin.melroy.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      62
      ·
      3 months ago

      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.

      • Mellow@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        ·
        3 months ago

        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

      • fruitycoder@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        ·
        3 months ago

        This exactly. M/S ment nothing to me messing with HDDs as a kid.

        It arguably only makes sense in a control node/ worker node context, but worker is obvious enough in that context.

    • BarrierWithAshes@fedia.io
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yeah this will just piss off the anti-porn/right-wing/tradcath(?) types instead of leftist/neolib/anti-racist types.

  • bad_alloc@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    44
    ·
    3 months ago

    “main” is shorter than “master”. “sub” is shorter than “slave”. Why worry about social issues when you can just type less and move on? :)

  • shneancy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    3 months ago

    no please stop, i’m so tired of googling kinky stuff, seeing a spicy looking result and opening it just to see some computer server stuff pick something else idk maybe capitalist & worker, bonus points for political commentary

    • beefbot
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      Agreed lol. this opinion also works for the god-awfully named “gimp”

    • elephantium@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      3 months ago

      A long time ago, in a job not so far away, I worked on a computer project where we were using Apache Jackrabbit.

      I quickly learned that I needed to search for Apache Jackrabbit and not just Jackrabbit – vibrators weren’t relevant to the project.

    • essell@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      3 months ago

      Stop discriminating then, see the sexiness in the servers, the horniness in the harddrive.

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    40
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    I’m a developer. I use main/release/dev for new projects, because it just sounds better and is more intuitive to me honestly. “Master” doesn’t make much sense. Like what’s so “master” about a “master branch”? It’s just the main branch everything gets merged into. It doesn’t “control” branches. There’s no “master/slave” relationship there. So again, “master” was never really intuitive to me.

    Old projects don’t get relabeled, they stay master, cause relabeling the main branch could cause potential problems. That’s my two cents.

    • Zink@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      I look at “master” in our repo like you would refer to a master recording or a remaster, or similarly the gold master for when you could say a video game has gone gold.

      • febra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        3 months ago

        I don’t know what a master recording is. Googled it and it seems to be related to vinyl or something. So yeah, kind of hard for me to wrap my head around that, but definitely an interesting outlook.

      • Scrollone@feddit.it
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s why they used master. And this makes the whole “master is a bad word” stupid, at least in Git context.

    • Evotech@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      Same for databases, master / slave does not really describe the relationship anymore. It’s a primary, secondary, control node, read only or something else.

    • Wizzard@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      3 months ago

      That’s where you should use something more like top / bottom /s

      I think in this sense, master is more akin to the ‘recording’ master - The best version of the recording to which others are generated, and all parts merged; no ‘slaves’ necessarily just the ‘master’.

    • jacksilver@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      3 months ago

      I think that’s because in computer science most master/slave nomenclature comes from hardware with a command/control structure (still notable in things like Spark where the namenode/master node controls the data nodes).

      GIT just took naming conventions from other existing design patterns (although I should probably look up sources to verify that assumption).

  • 10_0@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    38
    ·
    3 months ago

    I’m trying to imagine a world where this is a problem, oh, twitter

  • clickyello@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    ·
    3 months ago

    y’all I understand there are larger issues in the world but please let’s not pretend that POC working in tech feel awesome about typing master/slave in the terminal, it’s outdated and should be changed.

    • lud@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      24
      ·
      3 months ago

      But POC are not the only ones that have been enslaved.

      Pretty much all races and people have been enslaved in history.

      Slave does not equal North American POC slave and the term in this context has absolutely nothing to do with them. The only time it refers specifically to them is when discussing North American history (and maybe current history due to the fact that USA still enslaves people in prison)

      One might argue that the term is outdated because slaves are less common these days, but it has nothing to do with POC (or human slaves at all). But I won’t argue that because the term is very easy to understand and thus not outdated.

      • VulKendov@reddthat.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        19
        ·
        edit-2
        3 months ago

        North American, more specifically US slavery is very recent relative to the rest of history and was deeply ingrained into the economy of half the United States. War broke out to abolish it and the effects of it are still felt today.

        Pretty much all races and people have been enslaved in history.

        Don’t deflect from the racism, discrimination, and prejudice that black Americans still experience to this day because of slavery.

        • lud@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          10
          ·
          3 months ago

          Maybe but the terms slave and master have nothing to do with that.

        • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Don’t deflect from the racism, discrimination, and prejudice that black Americans still experience to this day because of slavery.

          hate to be that guy but like, i feel like we should probably push for more POC to enter CS education fields, or like, improve the socioeconomic status of them, or like, crack down on discriminatory hiring practices, before we like. Start removing words because they feel moderately icky and make my skin crawl.

          • colon_capital_D@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            6
            ·
            3 months ago

            Why not both? We have the capacity to replace outdated/useless words and make the situation better for others. In fact, one does not prevent the other whatsoever

            • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              that’s also true. But seeing as this is a discussion primarily about removing terms from common parlance, i think it’s reasonable to focus on solely that aspect.

              Ultimately, i’m just not really convinced that doing this is going to be ultimately productive at the end of the day. I might be wrong i suppose. But i think i’d need to see some supporting data first.

      • PeriodicallyPedantic@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        That’s a cool story, bro.

        Completely irrelevant to the observation that descendents of slaves probably dont appreciate the terminology.

    • yrmp@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      I’m white and I don’t feel comfortable saying it/typing it. It’s antiquated and weird.

    • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      17
      ·
      3 months ago

      Not just that, it’s bad and makes no sense in its technical context.

      Server client is far better.

      • lud@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        18
        ·
        3 months ago

        No, that’s completely dependent on what you are referring too. I have never heard anyone ever referring to a server as “master” or a client as a “slave”. The slave/master terminology is often used for storage. I.E. Master drive and slave drive.

        • Linkerbaan@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          edit-2
          3 months ago

          You are correct I swapped client with other such as worker, child, and helper,

          Master–slave (technology)

          In 2018, after a heated debate, developers of Python replaced the term. Python switched to main, parent, and server; and worker, child, and helper, depending on context.

          The Linux kernel adopted a similar policy to use more specific terms in new code and documentation.

          My problem with the term “slave” is that it does not indicate there is a delegation of work going, on but rather that the subdevice is somehow fully “owned” by the master device. Whereas in reality the master is more like a manager telling a worker what to do.

          • lud@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            In some cases the sub device is pretty much owned by the “master” device.

            I’m mostly thinking of IDE since that’s the only place I ever hear anyone use master/slave except GIT where master is used.

        • nemno@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 months ago

          Nowadays its more ofte used for server hierarchies/functionality. Or well, a lot of software is changing now. Mariadb use Source and replica.

      • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        that’s because the server is rarely the master, the clients do work, and the server just exchanges the work of the clients, it’s a lot more akin to a telephone exchange as opposed to a master/slave architecture.

    • KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      are you a person of color yourself? Or are you white like the statistical majority of us?

      Shitposting aside, i feel like if you feel weird typing it out, you probably care too much about most things in life, though then again, i’m pretty fucking autistic so.

    • Miaou@jlai.lu
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 months ago

      The fact that you write POC instead of “black people” shows how ridiculous this whole conversation is.

    • NostraDavid@programming.dev
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Is asked the local POC (Indonesian-Japanese; Indonesian-born) and he responded (and I quote) “people need to stop being pussies”. The Brazilians (Brazil mentioned!) didn’t care much either.

      So I don’t need to pretend anything about anything.

      Your milage may vary though.