Alternative terms for master and slave

David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
> I assume so too (though these names /are/ used in cryptography), but
> they are fine examples of what you get when you try to pick terms that
> have no connotations of one thing controlling other things.  And
> unfortunately it is no joke that some people and companies are trying to
> change terms like master/slave in technical usage.

IMHO words are just words.  We could call the things A and B, Alice and Bob,
aadvark and buzzard, it doesn't really matter.

However, it may be the existing choice of words is upsetting to some people. 
If that's the case, perhaps they should suggest some new words.  If we find
some words that are less upsetting all round, that's a win.

Some people say 'well I'm not upset by them so why should we change?'.
And of course if you don't see the problem, why would you be motivated to do
so?  So why not leave it to those who want to propose some better
ones, and let's adopt those?

What it doesn't need is to blow it up into a culture war demonising about
'those people undermining XYZ values' and seek to defend the pre-existing
state of affairs just because it was pre-existing, rather than any intrinsic
merits of the situation.

Theo

On 12/17/2020 10:04 AM, Theo wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> I assume so too (though these names /are/ used in cryptography), but
>> they are fine examples of what you get when you try to pick terms that
>> have no connotations of one thing controlling other things.  And
>> unfortunately it is no joke that some people and companies are trying to
>> change terms like master/slave in technical usage.
> 
> IMHO words are just words.  We could call the things A and B, Alice and Bob,
> aadvark and buzzard, it doesn't really matter.

Of course it does!  Words are meant to convey ideas/concepts.  We choose
words that map neatly to the concepts that we're trying to discuss.

Should all variable names be of the form "V<integer>"?  How much harder
would that make sorting out the intent of a particular coded algorithm?

We could call the horizontal axis "gertrude" and vertical axis "banana";
I wonder how long it would take for folks to get THOSE straight in their minds?
And, what /mnemonic aids/ would they develop to facilitate that?  (i.e.,
how would they MAP those names to REAL concepts?)

> However, it may be the existing choice of words is upsetting to some people.
> If that's the case, perhaps they should suggest some new words.  If we find
> some words that are less upsetting all round, that's a win.

The time for that is before the concepts are codified and the terms
(to be REPLACED) widely circulated.  You don't, now, decide that we should
call all these electronic computing devices "thinkatrons" (TmReg).
Imagine the hassle trying to reinterpret previous literature in light of this
ARBITRARILY newer name!

> Some people say 'well I'm not upset by them so why should we change?'.
> And of course if you don't see the problem, why would you be motivated to do
> so?  So why not leave it to those who want to propose some better
> ones, and let's adopt those?

Again, why?  Should we decide black has bad connotations for use as a ground
conductor (esp given that it is the HOT conductor in AC mains)?  Maybe we
should just rename that color as "fred", going forward!

> What it doesn't need is to blow it up into a culture war demonising about
> 'those people undermining XYZ values' and seek to defend the pre-existing
> state of affairs just because it was pre-existing, rather than any intrinsic
> merits of the situation.

Times (and attitudes) change.  Do we keep rewriting our history to comply
with the current set of pleasantries?  Or, do we adjust things GOING FORWARD
to reflect current sensibilities and learn to live with that which has come
before as a sign of our evolution?

On 17/12/2020 18:04, Theo wrote:
> David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>> I assume so too (though these names /are/ used in cryptography), but
>> they are fine examples of what you get when you try to pick terms that
>> have no connotations of one thing controlling other things.  And
>> unfortunately it is no joke that some people and companies are trying to
>> change terms like master/slave in technical usage.
> 
> IMHO words are just words.  We could call the things A and B, Alice and Bob,
> aadvark and buzzard, it doesn't really matter.
> 
> However, it may be the existing choice of words is upsetting to some people. 
> If that's the case, perhaps they should suggest some new words.  If we find
> some words that are less upsetting all round, that's a win.
> 
> Some people say 'well I'm not upset by them so why should we change?'.
> And of course if you don't see the problem, why would you be motivated to do
> so?  So why not leave it to those who want to propose some better
> ones, and let's adopt those?
> 
> What it doesn't need is to blow it up into a culture war demonising about
> 'those people undermining XYZ values' and seek to defend the pre-existing
> state of affairs just because it was pre-existing, rather than any intrinsic
> merits of the situation.
> 

That's all fine.

But what we have with terms such as master/slave bus nodes is that none
(to my knowledge) of the people using them are upset by them, nor are
people who might reasonably be bothered by such words (people who have
been slaves, or had some connection to people who have been slaves).
The people getting their knickers in a twist about these terms are
over-active extremist "social justice warriors" who are not content with
finding things that bother people, but are telling people what should
bother them.  (I have nothing against social justice or political
correctness - I'm ready to fight against all sorts of bigotry or
injustice.  But I am against extremism in any guise - too much of a good
thing is very rarely still a good thing.)

If I were to hear someone say "You know theses boards we are designing?
 It bothers me that some nodes are referred to as master nodes and some
as slave nodes", I'd look for new terms.  If I were to hear "You know
these wireless speakers you make that come in master/slave pairs?  Those
names bother me, because I have often been told that we black people
should still be slaves", I'd look for new terms.

If I hear that people are /actually/ bothered by the use of these terms
in my work or my field, then I'll try to change them.  But until that
time, I see no benefit in changed well-known and well-understood terms
to things without meaning that will cause confusion, error and
unnecessary work.

On Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 2:30:19 AM UTC-5, Michael Kellett wrote:
> On 15/12/2020 16:55, Rick C wrote: 
> > Here is another example. What do you think of using the term "carnal knowledge" to refer to knowledge of the inner workings of a function? 
> > 
> > This was a real discussion in a language forum. People were tossing the term around and I didn't know what they meant by it. I looked it up and found it's actually a term from mostly legal usage and fairly archaic. I have a relatively large vocabulary and the group is international, so I figured I would not be the only person needing to look it up. Since the only definition of carnal knowledge is to have intercourse with someone as in a trial, "Did you have carnal knowledge of the victim?" 
> > 
> > That just sounded strange to me. We give new meanings to words often, typically a closely related term that is given a particular shade of meaning in a technical context. I could not figure how anyone would think a euphemism for the sex act would be an appropriate term to requisition for use in discussing technical issues. 
> > 
> > I was accused of being a prude and seemingly in line with international opinions of people from the US. Many of the supporters of this new term indicated it was perfectly clear to them, so obviously must be clear to everyone. It was one of the oddest conversations I've had on the Internet. 
> >
> Perhaps people like using sex based terms for things because everyone 
> can understand the metaphor and a lot of us think about it a lot. 

That was my objection to the use of the term "carnal knowledge".  If someone not knowing the language looked it up and found it is a euphemism for having sex, what would they think it was being used for, having sex with your computer?  At least the term "promiscuous" has a dictionary meaning that is similar to the technical usage.   


> In the 60s it looked as if we might all get a bit more relaxed about 
> stuff - but now we seem to be going backwards. 

Not sure why you consider the issue to be a matter of going backwards.  Being sensitive to people's feelings is not a bad thing.  


> For what it's worth I use Controller and Device rather than Master and 
> Slave - it won't work - in the UK several terms for people with brain 
> function problems have been tried - but they typically take no more than 
> a year or two of common use to become derogatory. 

I think USB uses Host and Device which are good terms, clear enough and without connotations. 


> I wonder if people who sign have the same problem ...... 

Check out ASL for bullshit.  Very graphic. 

-- 

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:59:40 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>In the trade, the opposite of "Generic" is "Ethical".  Interesting
>choice of word!

Are you sure?

"Ethical" and "ethnical" may look similar, but have very different
meaning.
-- 
RoRo

On 12/18/2020 7:32 AM, Robert Roland wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Dec 2020 10:59:40 -0700, Don Y
> <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:
>> In the trade, the opposite of "Generic" is "Ethical".  Interesting
>> choice of word!
> 
> Are you sure?
> 
> "Ethical" and "ethnical" may look similar, but have very different
> meaning.

"Ethical" drugs are aka "prescription" drugs (in the US), for
hysterical raisins.  Their production, sale and dispensing are
regulated.  (other "medications" have less stringent restrictions)

Drugs that have gone "off patent" are produced by others
(beyond the "innovators") as "generic" drugs.  These are the same
medications (possibly minor "inert" differences in formulations
having to do with the production process) but, usually, at a reduced
sell price (the "generic" manufacturer doesn't have to bear the cost
of drug development and testing).

The lay public calls the former "brand name" but, old-timers in the
industry still resort to the use of "ethical" to differentiate
(though ALL are technically "ethical" in the "prescription" sense
of the word)

[I first heard this at a trade conference, many years ago.  I
turned to my boss and commented, "Wow!  What a sleight against
the generic industry!  (ethical suggests unethical)".  This, of
course, isn't the STATED intent...  though I suspect the ethical
producers aren't real keen on the generic houses!]

<https://pharmachemicalscoatings.blogspot.com/2007/12/challenges-to-ethical-and-generic-drug.html>

<https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM196110122651511>

Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems the terms *master* and *slave* are being phased out of the tech
> lexicon with help from Google. I know this is like herding cats, but I
> have a proposal for a terminology change.
> 
> Just replace *master* and *slave* with *Alice* and *Bob* respectively.
> *Bob* attaches to *Alice* and then *Alice* tells *Bob* what to do, so
> it's easy to remember. Isn't that more fun than *master* and *slave*?
> 
> In SPI terminology, *mosi* and *miso* become *aobi* and *aibo*. If you
> have multiple Bobs on the bus, it gets better. Alice has a meeting with the Bobs.
> 

Master - Apprentice
Works where the master can be replaced on failure, which is true with many
modern distributed software systems.

Just google synonyms for these words recursively.

In article <rra4up$okg$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 15/12/2020 10:32, Brad Eckert wrote:
>> It seems the terms *master* and *slave* are being phased out of the
>> tech lexicon with help from Google. I know this is like herding cats,
>> but I have a proposal for a terminology change.
>> 
>> Just replace *master* and *slave* with *Alice* and *Bob*
>> respectively. *Bob* attaches to *Alice* and then *Alice* tells *Bob*
>> what to do, so it's easy to remember. Isn't that more fun than
>> *master* and *slave*?
>> 
>> In SPI terminology, *mosi* and *miso* become *aobi* and *aibo*. If
>> you have multiple Bobs on the bus, it gets better. Alice has a
>> meeting with the Bobs.
>> 
>
>The software world is full of terms that can offend people if people
>choose to be offended.  Just look at processes on *nix systems - you get
>daemons and zombies, you stop a process by killing it, parent processes
>can't die until all their children are dead (or else the children turn
>into zombies), and so on.  I remember someone on my CSP course at
>university complaining about the terms "angelic choice" and "demonic
>choice".

IDE drives are configured as masters and slaves.  All end users had to
deal with setting up drives as "masters" or "slaves".  It's a problem for
tech support.  I don't doubt racist people did racist things with these
terms.

It's not so much that it only affects the small number of people designing
and building machines, it's that the terminology often gets out into the
rest of the world where it can be unnecessarily problematic.  It's a
sign of maturity that the industry sees no reason to go out of its way
to be offensive and childish to end users.

In my software, I have a Monarch which tells Serfs what to do.  It's very
useful since no one else uses those terms, so I always know what it's
referring to.

I wouldn't spend time redefining old standards, but for new standards, just
pick different words.  PCI master/slave became PCIe
initiator/requester/transmitter and completer/receiver.  What's the problem
with doing this?  PCIe is nearly 20 years old now--did anyone even realize
this was being done?  PCIe still refers to the PCI concepts using Master
and Slave--they didn't redefine anything, they just stopped using it for
anything PCIe-only.  And SATA got rid of master/slave, too.  And so on...

Basically, industry has already been doing this for more than two decades.

And the Alice and Bob stuff is like throwing a tantrum.

Kent

Am 19.12.2020 um 03:03 schrieb Brett:

> Master - Apprentice

Doesn't work.  "Apprentice" is not just any member of the master's work 
force; it's a career step towards becoming a master in one's own right. 
That doesn't fit a SPI or I2C device at all.  The correct term from that 
field would be "hand."

And that's before we consider that due to its relation to the past of 
the outgoing POTUS, the word "Apprentice" is just too close to being 
non-PC to bet a concerted world-wide data-sheet audit-and-rewrite on.

The core problem, though, is that however large the bubble of available 
synonyms is, excessive application of PC rules will eventually drain it 
completely.  Eventually you'll be unable to talk about anything, because 
any word actually meaning anything close to what you're trying to say 
will have been found offensive by someone, somewhere, at some point in 
time.  The idea of PC has a risk of being abused as a DDOS attack 
against the system of "language".

> Works where the master can be replaced on failure, which is true with many
> modern distributed software systems.

In which case it was never truly a master-slave system in the first place.

On 12/19/2020 23:41, Kent Dickey wrote:
 > ...
>...  And SATA got rid of master/slave, too.  And so on...
> 

SATA does just a single device per link so no "master/slave" to
be talked about (and the ATA standards talk of device 0 and 1,
no master/slave there either IIRC since > 20 years).

However you can connect two ATA/SATA bridges to an ATA port
which does device 0 and 1.... and device 1 (the "slave") will not
always work just fine, depends on which version of the bridge you
combine for device 1 (slave) with which for device 0 (master)....
That for the only truly working bridge on the market from Marvell.

:D :D

So much talk about that politically (in?) correct nonsense.
Context is enough offend or not offend anyone, the choice of words
is actually irrelevant. Those who want to offend will find ways to do it
using any sort of words and those who want to play offended victims
won't run out of "offensive" words either. Words exist and do have 
meaning, banning a certain word is outright stupid. It is the messages
people convey which can be offensive, not the words.

Dimiter

======================================================
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
======================================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/