3 ms·

It will break a lot of code and a lot of tools. For what? To virtue signal about something that has nothing to do with the current civil rights movement? Shoul

It will break a lot of code and a lot of tools. For what? To virtue signal about something that has nothing to do with the current civil rights movement? Should we change the word master data? Git is also an offensive term. This is absurd.

gowld 6y ago
Git is a self deprecating name. It's not a term that normalizes (very) bad behavior. "Gimp" is a better example of a bad name.
oarabbus_ 6y ago
"It will break a lot of code" Yes, because there's no precedent for non-essential changes which break code. Maybe there's a good reason not to change the "master/slave" terminology but this sure as hell ain't it.
- aeonsky 6y ago
  Once again, the usage here has nothing to do with master-slave idea. Obviously there is precedent for breaking changes. The benefits must outweigh the costs, the cost here is monumental, and the benefit here is non-existent.
  - oarabbus_ 6y ago
    >and the benefit here is non-existent. To be clear, I'm not advocating for this change to occur. But clearly others disagree with you on this bit.
komali2 6y ago
I sense a bad faith interpretation of the word "offensive." The issue with master/slave is way more than "it's offensive." By changing the language, people are taking explicit steps to move away from language rooted in racism. That's an important part of moving a culture away from normalization of oppression of minorities.
- aeonsky 6y ago
  Git's use of master has nothing to do with the master/slave idea. The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Not every use of master is offensive/rooted in slavery/racism.
  - komali2 6y ago
    > The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Hah, what? Slavery is as old as language, so I find this an interesting suggestion. Edit: good points about the origin of language below. Another interesting question: if there had been more black computer scientists in early day MIT, Stanford, etc, would these terms have been adapted to the new technologies?
    - allan_s 6y ago
      master -> maetre (old french) -> magister latin magister in latin, as far as I remember is the term used for the teacher (which is the same meaning in modern french, maître is how you call a teacher of primary school)
    - bonzini 6y ago
      Latin used dominus for the master of a slave, and magister for someone who mastered or taught something.
- druddha 6y ago
  But in this case, the term "slave" isn't being used, right?
- gambiting 6y ago
  No, it's still insane, because it assumes that humans don't have two brain cells and cannot understand context. Master/slave make sense in context where....that's exactly what these things are. Why call them something else? Because these words, when used in a human context, are or can be offensive? Like, ants(if I remember my biology lessons correctly) use other insects as slaves. In that relationship, ants are the masters and some other insect is the slave. Should we change biology books, because these words can be offensive when used in the context of humans? Why? Any functional adult should be able to distinguish between the two. For other possible examples - should Montenegro change its name because negro can be offensive when used to describe humans(and even then not everywhere, it's mostly American context where it is)? Should we start renaming all islands, lakes, forests where negro is used in the name? In fact, I know that Finland is doing already this, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Really, if this whole thing is offensive to anything, then it is to human intelligence more than anything.

gowld 6y ago

Git is a self deprecating name. It's not a term that normalizes (very) bad behavior. "Gimp" is a better example of a bad name.

oarabbus_ 6y ago

"It will break a lot of code" Yes, because there's no precedent for non-essential changes which break code. Maybe there's a good reason not to change the "master/slave" terminology but this sure as hell ain't it.

aeonsky 6y ago
Once again, the usage here has nothing to do with master-slave idea. Obviously there is precedent for breaking changes. The benefits must outweigh the costs, the cost here is monumental, and the benefit here is non-existent.
- oarabbus_ 6y ago
  >and the benefit here is non-existent. To be clear, I'm not advocating for this change to occur. But clearly others disagree with you on this bit.

komali2 6y ago

I sense a bad faith interpretation of the word "offensive." The issue with master/slave is way more than "it's offensive." By changing the language, people are taking explicit steps to move away from language rooted in racism. That's an important part of moving a culture away from normalization of oppression of minorities.

aeonsky 6y ago
Git's use of master has nothing to do with the master/slave idea. The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Not every use of master is offensive/rooted in slavery/racism.
- komali2 6y ago
  > The word master been a word longer than it has been associated with slavery. Hah, what? Slavery is as old as language, so I find this an interesting suggestion. Edit: good points about the origin of language below. Another interesting question: if there had been more black computer scientists in early day MIT, Stanford, etc, would these terms have been adapted to the new technologies?
  - allan_s 6y ago
    master -> maetre (old french) -> magister latin magister in latin, as far as I remember is the term used for the teacher (which is the same meaning in modern french, maître is how you call a teacher of primary school)
  - bonzini 6y ago
    Latin used dominus for the master of a slave, and magister for someone who mastered or taught something.
druddha 6y ago
But in this case, the term "slave" isn't being used, right?
gambiting 6y ago
No, it's still insane, because it assumes that humans don't have two brain cells and cannot understand context. Master/slave make sense in context where....that's exactly what these things are. Why call them something else? Because these words, when used in a human context, are or can be offensive? Like, ants(if I remember my biology lessons correctly) use other insects as slaves. In that relationship, ants are the masters and some other insect is the slave. Should we change biology books, because these words can be offensive when used in the context of humans? Why? Any functional adult should be able to distinguish between the two. For other possible examples - should Montenegro change its name because negro can be offensive when used to describe humans(and even then not everywhere, it's mostly American context where it is)? Should we start renaming all islands, lakes, forests where negro is used in the name? In fact, I know that Finland is doing already this, which makes absolutely no sense to me. Really, if this whole thing is offensive to anything, then it is to human intelligence more than anything.