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