4 ms·

But it's ok to assume a lack of offense on the part of every other person? I think we all get what the terms mean In This Context but there are other options av

But it's ok to assume a lack of offense on the part of every other person? I think we all get what the terms mean In This Context but there are other options available that don't require that kind of boxing and unboxing. Other projects have done this successfully[0] and the Redis maintainer is right here in the thread saying he understands the concern. The thing I never get with these objections is, what is the harm in raising the point/ making the change? Who loses? [0] https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22667 https://code.djangoproject.com/ticket/22667

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
It's pretty "lame" to push established projects to make confusing terminology changes to address whatever words the "peanut gallery" is upset about this week. Try not to be so "uppity", "guy".
- schneems 9y ago
  "Slave" is technically incorrect. There are better terms to describe the behavior such as "follower" or "replica". If someone has been around long enough to understand what a "slave" is can't figure out what a "replica" or a "follower" does, maybe they shouldn't be in tech. The transition cost for documentation is essentially zero. Naming things is hard, and better names are better for everyone. Antirez said he would change the name if he could start over, hence the hill you're dying on is not shared by the author of the library you're posting on. Edit: For clarity of argument.
  - Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
    It's not just a replica, it can work offline for a while and push back. Leader/follower is also flawed in my opinion. It's master and a slave even if it offends your sensibilities. These arguments are a waste of everyone's time. >This hill you're dying on looks awfully lonely. Ironic coming from a grey response to a 15 point comment. I will change my tune if even one victim of slavery comes forward and speaks about the use of the terminology.
    - schneems 9y ago
      > It's not just a replica, it can work offline for a while and push back. Leader/follower is also flawed in my opinion. It's master and a slave even if it offends your sensibilities. I'm glad that your concerned that "follower" and "replica" aren't perfect terms. We should be concerned with terminology. I humbly suggest that "slave" DBs are not physically whipped by their "masters", therefore are an even worse metaphor. > These arguments are a waste of everyone's time. Then why are you wasting your time? If you don't care, don't argue back. Boom, you've got your time back. We all get a better name, everyone is happy.
  - Mouse47 9y ago
    I agree that the terminology doesn't matter, but consensus does. Master/slave are the commonly understood terms. Here's a question: if "slave" is offensive, should "kill" (as in 'kill 69' to kill a process in SQL Server) be considered offensive as well? Simply as a consequence of being something 'bad/immoral'? I'm sorry, and I'd be glad to be corrected, but I genuinely find this argument...disingenuous. And people who see things the same way I do see that kind of argument and think that you've got other motives. EDIT: I want to say (to prevent this discussion from flying off into Trump-land) that I'm liberal on most issues except gun control. I just have a hard time relating to the 'micro-aggression-y' brand of liberalism I've been seeing of late.
    - schneems 9y ago
      Master/slave was also a commonly accepted role of business for far longer than it has been a computer term. We managed to change that in the west. I believe in us, we can do it. > I genuinely find this argument...disingenuous My argument is that the term is not technically correct. How is that disingenuous?
      - Mouse47 9y ago
        I'm arguing specifically against the term being offensive. EDIT: and oddly, I can't seem to find the word anywhere in your comment that I replied to. Am I losing my mind, or did you take that part out?
        schneems 9y ago
        I had it in there to emphasize how un-technically incorrect it is. Apparently people saw the word "offensive" and they didn't read the rest, so I took it out to add clarity. I forgot that HN doesn't provide a diff of edits, so went back and added a note in the comment that it was edited. Edit: Edited this note to mention I updated the previous note with an edit note.
        Mouse47 9y ago
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
striking 9y ago
The people who have to change their code to accept the changes lose. For Django the change was much simpler because it was mostly a docs/tests change. However, here, we'd have to change Redis' API (or include more than one way to do the same thing). Raising the point is fine. Discussion is important. But making the change, in this case, has some clear downsides that antirez has carefully weighed against the pros.
tertius 9y ago
> The thing I never get with these objections is, what is the harm in raising the point/ making the change? Who loses? A good practice should be to try to find the most convincing voice (online, not just here) with an argument that answers this question. That's the best route to honesty. If you can't do this then you're not up for debate. This is something we all have to do with all of our arguments or questions. If a question is not investigated it becomes a statement. Just because the person that you're asking cannot come up with a good answer does not mean that a good one does not exist. So you win by make a statement and not asking an honest question.
instantaphex 9y ago
We lose linguistic ground to the neo Marxist ideologues that seek to tyrannize the use of the English language.

Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago

It's pretty "lame" to push established projects to make confusing terminology changes to address whatever words the "peanut gallery" is upset about this week. Try not to be so "uppity", "guy".

schneems 9y ago
"Slave" is technically incorrect. There are better terms to describe the behavior such as "follower" or "replica". If someone has been around long enough to understand what a "slave" is can't figure out what a "replica" or a "follower" does, maybe they shouldn't be in tech. The transition cost for documentation is essentially zero. Naming things is hard, and better names are better for everyone. Antirez said he would change the name if he could start over, hence the hill you're dying on is not shared by the author of the library you're posting on. Edit: For clarity of argument.
- Sir_Cmpwn 9y ago
  It's not just a replica, it can work offline for a while and push back. Leader/follower is also flawed in my opinion. It's master and a slave even if it offends your sensibilities. These arguments are a waste of everyone's time. >This hill you're dying on looks awfully lonely. Ironic coming from a grey response to a 15 point comment. I will change my tune if even one victim of slavery comes forward and speaks about the use of the terminology.
  - schneems 9y ago
    > It's not just a replica, it can work offline for a while and push back. Leader/follower is also flawed in my opinion. It's master and a slave even if it offends your sensibilities. I'm glad that your concerned that "follower" and "replica" aren't perfect terms. We should be concerned with terminology. I humbly suggest that "slave" DBs are not physically whipped by their "masters", therefore are an even worse metaphor. > These arguments are a waste of everyone's time. Then why are you wasting your time? If you don't care, don't argue back. Boom, you've got your time back. We all get a better name, everyone is happy.
- Mouse47 9y ago
  I agree that the terminology doesn't matter, but consensus does. Master/slave are the commonly understood terms. Here's a question: if "slave" is offensive, should "kill" (as in 'kill 69' to kill a process in SQL Server) be considered offensive as well? Simply as a consequence of being something 'bad/immoral'? I'm sorry, and I'd be glad to be corrected, but I genuinely find this argument...disingenuous. And people who see things the same way I do see that kind of argument and think that you've got other motives. EDIT: I want to say (to prevent this discussion from flying off into Trump-land) that I'm liberal on most issues except gun control. I just have a hard time relating to the 'micro-aggression-y' brand of liberalism I've been seeing of late.
  - schneems 9y ago
    Master/slave was also a commonly accepted role of business for far longer than it has been a computer term. We managed to change that in the west. I believe in us, we can do it. > I genuinely find this argument...disingenuous My argument is that the term is not technically correct. How is that disingenuous?
    - Mouse47 9y ago
      I'm arguing specifically against the term being offensive. EDIT: and oddly, I can't seem to find the word anywhere in your comment that I replied to. Am I losing my mind, or did you take that part out?
      - schneems 9y ago
        I had it in there to emphasize how un-technically incorrect it is. Apparently people saw the word "offensive" and they didn't read the rest, so I took it out to add clarity. I forgot that HN doesn't provide a diff of edits, so went back and added a note in the comment that it was edited. Edit: Edited this note to mention I updated the previous note with an edit note.
        Mouse47 9y ago
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

striking 9y ago

The people who have to change their code to accept the changes lose. For Django the change was much simpler because it was mostly a docs/tests change. However, here, we'd have to change Redis' API (or include more than one way to do the same thing). Raising the point is fine. Discussion is important. But making the change, in this case, has some clear downsides that antirez has carefully weighed against the pros.

tertius 9y ago

> The thing I never get with these objections is, what is the harm in raising the point/ making the change? Who loses? A good practice should be to try to find the most convincing voice (online, not just here) with an argument that answers this question. That's the best route to honesty. If you can't do this then you're not up for debate. This is something we all have to do with all of our arguments or questions. If a question is not investigated it becomes a statement. Just because the person that you're asking cannot come up with a good answer does not mean that a good one does not exist. So you win by make a statement and not asking an honest question.

instantaphex 9y ago

We lose linguistic ground to the neo Marxist ideologues that seek to tyrannize the use of the English language.