5 ms·

Words can have multiple definitions. Webster dictionary defines slave as "a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another." Machi

Words can have multiple definitions. Webster dictionary defines slave as "a device (as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another." Machines aren't people. No one implements "master/slave" database replication and then thinks human slavery is socially acceptable.

deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
jldugger 12y ago
At the same time, "primary/replica" is just as well easily understood, and the change is easy to make. If making the change makes it marginally easier for minority participation, and you want your user base to grow, why not make the change?
- claudius 12y ago
  Except that primary/replica is of course not a drop-in replacement for master/slave (just think of the two devices per IDE bus). Furthermore, it is trivial to find offence in the word “primary” as well, especially in a context where master/slave was used previously, just think of “primus inter pares”.
  - Symmetry 12y ago
    It might not be a drop in replacement in all circumstances, but it is in the case under discussion. I don't think anyone in this discussion would support using primary/replicant for IDE busses, and bringing them up here is really just a straw man. You can't avoid ever offending someone, but in this case you can reduce the amount of offence caused by a small but significant amount at basically no cost.
- chrismcb 12y ago
  Easily understood by whom? How does "main" and "copies" imply the same thing that "master" and "slave" implies? There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. Server/client is perhaps the best replacement, but even that has slightly different connotations (especially today) "replica" and "secondary" are horrible choice for replacements.
  - jldugger 12y ago
    > There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. rep·li·ca [rep-li-kuh] noun 1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision. 2. any close or exact copy or reproduction. Things we would call replicas cannot exist without an original. But you're right, there's no control involved in the word. Could you please explain how replication involves a primary controlling replicas, or perhaps how the absence of a controlling primary node matters?
DanBC 12y ago
You say that words have different definitions. Then you supply a reference to a dictionary that is using a descriptivist definition of a modern use of the word which is clearly derived from the long established definition of slave. It's not particularly convincing.
- hashberry 12y ago
  It's an example of how words can change. The counter-argument is that slave is a "bad word" and can only mean one thing (e.g. humans not machines), therefore it should never be used to describe anything else.
  - DanBC 12y ago
    The counter argument is that for hundreds of years (from at least 13th C, but also older from 9th C) the word "slave" has meant a human forced into labour. It is associated with death, murder, rape, brutality. The newer usage is not needed and could easily be changed to other better words.
gress 12y ago
If you had an African American on your team, and someone asked you to change the terminology because they could see it was causing discomfort, would you feel content to give this reply?
- elohesra 12y ago
  Yes, obviously. If the reply is fallacious, then show that it's fallacious. If it is fallacious then it shouldn't be used as an argument irrespective of whom it's aimed it. If the reply doesn't contain some logical flaw, then it simply doesn't matter whether its opponent is black or white or anything else: neither truth nor logic are subject to whether people like them.
  - itsdrewmiller 12y ago
    Do you have any black people on your team?
  - gress 12y ago
    Have you considered that there is more than one way of one way of making true statements, especially those based on metaphor? Truth an logic are only one dimension of communication. Why would you choose a more offensive way of saying something over a less offensive way?
- zaqokm 12y ago
  Yes, some African Americans may get offended by this. HOWEVER slave does not mean black, in fact there were black people around the world who were in fact Masters. I could take offence by the limited perspective you put on the word relating it to only African Americans, there are many from Europe who fall in the sex slavery trade who are not black. In Australia the word 'root' has sexual connotations, so if I was to work on your team would you be happy to change this word, so no more root access, root directory, if I said it was offensive ? Words can be offensive, but generally they are offensive because of the context. For example, should it be offensive for me to say the night sky is black, black is an offensive word but it is also a valid contextual description.

deleted 12y ago

[deleted]

jldugger 12y ago

At the same time, "primary/replica" is just as well easily understood, and the change is easy to make. If making the change makes it marginally easier for minority participation, and you want your user base to grow, why not make the change?

claudius 12y ago
Except that primary/replica is of course not a drop-in replacement for master/slave (just think of the two devices per IDE bus). Furthermore, it is trivial to find offence in the word “primary” as well, especially in a context where master/slave was used previously, just think of “primus inter pares”.
- Symmetry 12y ago
  It might not be a drop in replacement in all circumstances, but it is in the case under discussion. I don't think anyone in this discussion would support using primary/replicant for IDE busses, and bringing them up here is really just a straw man. You can't avoid ever offending someone, but in this case you can reduce the amount of offence caused by a small but significant amount at basically no cost.
chrismcb 12y ago
Easily understood by whom? How does "main" and "copies" imply the same thing that "master" and "slave" implies? There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. Server/client is perhaps the best replacement, but even that has slightly different connotations (especially today) "replica" and "secondary" are horrible choice for replacements.
- jldugger 12y ago
  > There is nothing in the words "replica" or "secondary" that implies the "primary" controls the others. rep·li·ca [rep-li-kuh] noun 1. a copy or reproduction of a work of art produced by the maker of the original or under his or her supervision. 2. any close or exact copy or reproduction. Things we would call replicas cannot exist without an original. But you're right, there's no control involved in the word. Could you please explain how replication involves a primary controlling replicas, or perhaps how the absence of a controlling primary node matters?

DanBC 12y ago

You say that words have different definitions. Then you supply a reference to a dictionary that is using a descriptivist definition of a modern use of the word which is clearly derived from the long established definition of slave. It's not particularly convincing.

hashberry 12y ago
It's an example of how words can change. The counter-argument is that slave is a "bad word" and can only mean one thing (e.g. humans not machines), therefore it should never be used to describe anything else.
- DanBC 12y ago
  The counter argument is that for hundreds of years (from at least 13th C, but also older from 9th C) the word "slave" has meant a human forced into labour. It is associated with death, murder, rape, brutality. The newer usage is not needed and could easily be changed to other better words.

gress 12y ago

If you had an African American on your team, and someone asked you to change the terminology because they could see it was causing discomfort, would you feel content to give this reply?

elohesra 12y ago
Yes, obviously. If the reply is fallacious, then show that it's fallacious. If it is fallacious then it shouldn't be used as an argument irrespective of whom it's aimed it. If the reply doesn't contain some logical flaw, then it simply doesn't matter whether its opponent is black or white or anything else: neither truth nor logic are subject to whether people like them.
- itsdrewmiller 12y ago
  Do you have any black people on your team?
- gress 12y ago
  Have you considered that there is more than one way of one way of making true statements, especially those based on metaphor? Truth an logic are only one dimension of communication. Why would you choose a more offensive way of saying something over a less offensive way?
zaqokm 12y ago
Yes, some African Americans may get offended by this. HOWEVER slave does not mean black, in fact there were black people around the world who were in fact Masters. I could take offence by the limited perspective you put on the word relating it to only African Americans, there are many from Europe who fall in the sex slavery trade who are not black. In Australia the word 'root' has sexual connotations, so if I was to work on your team would you be happy to change this word, so no more root access, root directory, if I said it was offensive ? Words can be offensive, but generally they are offensive because of the context. For example, should it be offensive for me to say the night sky is black, black is an offensive word but it is also a valid contextual description.