It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
We’re already using that on the org chart.
deleted by creator
Tab A; Slot B
Penis / Onahole
Primary/secondary?
That doesn’t make sense depending on the context. New I2C standard switched to controller/target for example. This conveys that one device is controlling the other devices.
i saw main/clone for storage once
My suggestion doesn’t make sense in the classic PATA sense either, since there were potentially several “slave” devices, but they weren’t slaves so much as dependent on the “master.”
Parent/child(ren)(s)
I have my primary, and my secondary, and my secondary secondary.
Leader/follower works though.
We’ve been using Master/Bater down at the church.
Big spoon/Little spoon
Both spoons are the same size. Different size ones wouldn’t fit together like that.
Dom drive: “Daddy”
Sub drive: “UwU”
Nya
OwO and UwU drives. That’s perfect.
I’ve seen “Domain Controller” and “Subscriber” for the sake of plausible deniability.
In the case of SPI, they want to keep intact the names MISO (master in, slave out) and MOSI. So they use things like “Main” and “Sub”.
What’s wrong with primary/secondary or main/alternate!?
Primary and secondary are usually peers, where the secondary takes over when the primary isn’t functioning. Which isn’t the same relationship, as the master/slave terminology indicates that if the master fails, the slave will also fail.
Parent/child is probably a better way to describe this kind of relationship.
Parent/child is probably a better way to describe this kind of relationship.
Not quite as child presumes a ultimate reliance on a parent.
In master/slave (harddrive configurations) you can promote EITHER drive to master and use the other as slave. It doesn’t matter which is master. Just that they both configured correctly in regards to the other.
Parent/Child doesn’t really accommodate for that quirk.
Or just use the existing terms. People will find issues with just abuut anything.
Yeah this will just piss off the anti-porn/right-wing/tradcath(?) types instead of leftist/neolib/anti-racist types.
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
Still easier than getting multicast working
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.
is that used anywhere but old ide interface disk drives. is it even relevant anymore?
There’s the “master” branch in git, often named “main” now. In distributed systems, there’s often “master” and “slave” nodes, often named “primary” and “follower”/“replica” now
I mean master on git is a stretch but honestly it would make way more sense for it to be like trunk given the whole branch thing. I honestly never see master and slave node but rather primary and actually usually secondary.
The master branch in git isn’t the same though. It’s closer related to the word “remaster.” Master used to mean the original document is still used everywhere in tech and outside of it.
Main makes more sense since a master copy should be something that doesn’t change in my opinion. But that’s semantics…
Embedded systems run into this a lot, especially on low level communication busses. It’s pretty common to have a comm bus architecture where there is just one device that is supposed to be in control of both the communication happening on the bus and what the other devices are actually doing. SPI and I2C are both examples of this, but both of those busses have architectures where there isn’t one single controller or that the devices have some other way to arbitrate who is talking on the bus. It’s functionally useful to have a term to differentiate between the two.
I’ve seen Master/Servant used before which in my experience just trips people up and doesn’t really address the cultural reason for not using the terms.
Personally I’m a fan of MIL-STD-1553 terminology, Bus Controller and Remote Terminal, but the letters M and S are heavily baked into so much literature and designs at this point (eg MISO and MOSI) that entirely swapping them out will be costly and so few people will do it, so it sticks around
FINALLY, a comment about IDE drives! Master/Slave is correct in terminology and function for IDE drives.
It’s used in Cisco networking and Red Hat bonding that I know of. Changing it to primary/secondary IMHO is better and more clear.
I likely have not been in a large enough setup to encounter that. Usually just one router and the bunch of switches.
Im not having much luck getting top/bottom accepted at my job.
Too ambiguous- bottoms are kings.
Boss/Minion
That’s all fine and good for computer science, but if Master/Slave terminology is canceled, who’s going to tell the philosophy department?
