15 ms·

Absolutely. First was the Apache commons clause license, and responding to random folks who assumed Redis was going closed source. Then the current issue of cha

by ksri 8y ago

Absolutely. First was the Apache commons clause license, and responding to random folks who assumed Redis was going closed source. Then the current issue of changing master slave termibology,and having to hear negative things from both the camps. Lolwut is the perfect break from madness.

mberning 8y ago
But he didn't get rid of the 'master' terminology, only slave. I bet "they" come for that next. I feel sorry for the guy.
- kbsletten 8y ago
  I think the idea of "master" as in a definitive or original copy has enough usage that it's considered a second meaning of the word. I guess it's still possible that people will be upset, but without "slave", it's not unreasonable to assume that people will think of a key or album master instead of a slaver.
  - cabaalis 8y ago
    Is master/slave even a proper term to begin with? If we approach it from a "human slavery" standpoint, the master directs slaves to perform tasks that the master does not itself perform. Master/replica makes sense to me in the context of copies that all perform the same function, including the master.
    - etcet 8y ago
      Now this is the kind of argument that could actually persuade any remaining holdouts. It's not bad terminology because it's offensive but because it's inaccurate!
      - iamdave 8y ago
        Personally I wasn't-necessarily-a hold out, rather dispassionately observing from the sidelines but I'll admit that approach to the descriptors made me subtly. It makes the most sense, and much more accurately defines the mechanisms involved.
    - derefr 8y ago
      Even that doesn't quite fit, I think. It makes sense for Redis, but in a lot of other master/slave topologies, what's actually happening is that 1. a group is electing a leader; 2. the leader says what is happening; and then 3. everyone (including the leader) all does what the leader said, concurrently. I feel like there is probably an exact term for this arrangement, from another discipline. Maybe choreography? • There are principal dancers and back-up dancers. People performing the same action are dancing in unison. • There are cheerleading captains and their squads, which consist of the roles of base, flyer, and spotter. Interestingly, being captain (giving orders) is disjoint from a member's performative role within the squad; a member of any role could also be the captain. • There are operatic prima donnas (or primo uomos)—the lead singers—and a chorus, though these are not mirrored. • Orchestral organization has tons of different roles: the orchestral ensemble composed of players; their conductor; the principal of each section; the concertmaster (the principal of the section leading the melody of the piece, usually the first violin section.) You can also speak of accompaniment. Interestingly, most of these disciplines lack a term for "everyone of a group being led, besides the leader." I would assume that this is because the leader is taking part in the group, and so there is no explicit action taken by the group-minus-the-lead, only actions taken by the lead or taken by the group as a whole. (On the other hand, for machines, it is useful to talk about the process of following the lead's... lead. Humans generally do this implicitly, and don't really refer to it as an explicit action they're undertaking, separately from the actions that they're mirroring.)
Aloha 8y ago
I'm both aghast and amused that people are making a big deal about master/slave when used in the context of computers.
- bovermyer 8y ago
  The way I look at it, the amount of effort required to change that terminology is less than the amount of community discomfort generated by keeping it.
  - umvi 8y ago
    It makes me very angry when "they" (I'm not even sure who "they" are or what their motives are) go around policing random software projects for political correctness compliance, bullying/mobbing the maintainers if they don't comply, etc. These people even go after your project if one of your maintainers is deemed politically incorrect outside of the scope of the project (i.e. on Twitter) and demand they be kicked out. I miss the days when politics and political correctness didn't directly affect software projects. What do these political police stand to gain from all of this?
    - bovermyer 8y ago
      Since time immemorial, some people have gotten outraged over what others consider to be ridiculous or trivial things. That hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is that social media and the Internet in general have made it much easier to organize. Software projects have always been plagued by humans arguing with each other.
    - Aloha 8y ago
      I've come to believe its a mix of virtue signalling (public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitude without any associated risk or sacrifice.) and pat-yourself-on-the-back slacktavism (there, I tweeted about what people perceive to be a problem, therefor I've done my part). In essence, they get to tell themselves (mostly convincingly so) that they have contributed to reduce inequality and discrimination, and are helping right a historical wrong. In the end, I dont think it changes things one wit - but it makes people feel better, so I guess its a net good over time - albeit an unconscionably silly one.
citilife 8y ago
I think it's sad this was a debate at all. As a maintainer, there is some responsibility to respond to people who are working with you or using your product. On the other hand, personally I would have just said: "deal with it". The fact of the matter is, virtually no one has been or is a slave, no one is being mocked, no one is being belittled, it's a term used to describe a system. Sure, it could be more "politically correct" (I use master and worker, personally) - however, if I inherited or was working on a code base. I would not have been as open to changing terminology as this guy. As he put it, we are there to program. If it doesn't enhance readability, speed, etc. it's not changing - stop wasting my time. As a "computer scientist" we should try to be objective about terms, and build forward. That means, potentially changing that terminology for the future, but also not being emotionally attached to the terms which are not intended to be subversive, subjective, etc. We live in a society, people are going to use the term "slave" to describe things, people are going to say things you don't like, use terms you don't enjoy. I hate acronyms, I find that it is a way to segment a society or group into those who know them and those who don't. Even the term "LOLWUT", means you need to understand the term "LOL" and where "WUT" comes from. ... And that's my point, as a society, I shouldn't be pushing my preferences onto you. I should be learning to deal with my own emotions and understanding. If it's something that impacts my freedom, then maybe I should bring it up. Calling something a "slave" doesn't mean it impacts your freedom.
- natestemen 8y ago
  > If it doesn't enhance readability, speed, etc. I disagree. Having terminology that is clear (which master/slave is not) decreases the time needed to spend to get an understanding of whatever it is you're working on. Also related, if someone is offended by terminology then that will slow down their progress in understanding because they first have to process those feelings in order to continue.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - citilife 8y ago
    Master/Slave is clearly defined in any sort of systems programming. You're taught it in school, there's a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) Don't give me that - also as a maintainer, I wouldn't want to work with people who slow me down on terminology issues (when they feel offended, for industry standard terms).

by ksri 8y ago

mberning 8y ago

But he didn't get rid of the 'master' terminology, only slave. I bet "they" come for that next. I feel sorry for the guy.

kbsletten 8y ago
I think the idea of "master" as in a definitive or original copy has enough usage that it's considered a second meaning of the word. I guess it's still possible that people will be upset, but without "slave", it's not unreasonable to assume that people will think of a key or album master instead of a slaver.
- cabaalis 8y ago
  Is master/slave even a proper term to begin with? If we approach it from a "human slavery" standpoint, the master directs slaves to perform tasks that the master does not itself perform. Master/replica makes sense to me in the context of copies that all perform the same function, including the master.
  - etcet 8y ago
    Now this is the kind of argument that could actually persuade any remaining holdouts. It's not bad terminology because it's offensive but because it's inaccurate!
    - iamdave 8y ago
      Personally I wasn't-necessarily-a hold out, rather dispassionately observing from the sidelines but I'll admit that approach to the descriptors made me subtly. It makes the most sense, and much more accurately defines the mechanisms involved.
  - derefr 8y ago
    Even that doesn't quite fit, I think. It makes sense for Redis, but in a lot of other master/slave topologies, what's actually happening is that 1. a group is electing a leader; 2. the leader says what is happening; and then 3. everyone (including the leader) all does what the leader said, concurrently. I feel like there is probably an exact term for this arrangement, from another discipline. Maybe choreography? • There are principal dancers and back-up dancers. People performing the same action are dancing in unison. • There are cheerleading captains and their squads, which consist of the roles of base, flyer, and spotter. Interestingly, being captain (giving orders) is disjoint from a member's performative role within the squad; a member of any role could also be the captain. • There are operatic prima donnas (or primo uomos)—the lead singers—and a chorus, though these are not mirrored. • Orchestral organization has tons of different roles: the orchestral ensemble composed of players; their conductor; the principal of each section; the concertmaster (the principal of the section leading the melody of the piece, usually the first violin section.) You can also speak of accompaniment. Interestingly, most of these disciplines lack a term for "everyone of a group being led, besides the leader." I would assume that this is because the leader is taking part in the group, and so there is no explicit action taken by the group-minus-the-lead, only actions taken by the lead or taken by the group as a whole. (On the other hand, for machines, it is useful to talk about the process of following the lead's... lead. Humans generally do this implicitly, and don't really refer to it as an explicit action they're undertaking, separately from the actions that they're mirroring.)

Aloha 8y ago

I'm both aghast and amused that people are making a big deal about master/slave when used in the context of computers.

bovermyer 8y ago
The way I look at it, the amount of effort required to change that terminology is less than the amount of community discomfort generated by keeping it.
- umvi 8y ago
  It makes me very angry when "they" (I'm not even sure who "they" are or what their motives are) go around policing random software projects for political correctness compliance, bullying/mobbing the maintainers if they don't comply, etc. These people even go after your project if one of your maintainers is deemed politically incorrect outside of the scope of the project (i.e. on Twitter) and demand they be kicked out. I miss the days when politics and political correctness didn't directly affect software projects. What do these political police stand to gain from all of this?
  - bovermyer 8y ago
    Since time immemorial, some people have gotten outraged over what others consider to be ridiculous or trivial things. That hasn't changed. The only thing that has changed is that social media and the Internet in general have made it much easier to organize. Software projects have always been plagued by humans arguing with each other.
  - Aloha 8y ago
    I've come to believe its a mix of virtue signalling (public, empty gestures intended to convey socially approved attitude without any associated risk or sacrifice.) and pat-yourself-on-the-back slacktavism (there, I tweeted about what people perceive to be a problem, therefor I've done my part). In essence, they get to tell themselves (mostly convincingly so) that they have contributed to reduce inequality and discrimination, and are helping right a historical wrong. In the end, I dont think it changes things one wit - but it makes people feel better, so I guess its a net good over time - albeit an unconscionably silly one.

citilife 8y ago

I think it's sad this was a debate at all. As a maintainer, there is some responsibility to respond to people who are working with you or using your product. On the other hand, personally I would have just said: "deal with it". The fact of the matter is, virtually no one has been or is a slave, no one is being mocked, no one is being belittled, it's a term used to describe a system. Sure, it could be more "politically correct" (I use master and worker, personally) - however, if I inherited or was working on a code base. I would not have been as open to changing terminology as this guy. As he put it, we are there to program. If it doesn't enhance readability, speed, etc. it's not changing - stop wasting my time. As a "computer scientist" we should try to be objective about terms, and build forward. That means, potentially changing that terminology for the future, but also not being emotionally attached to the terms which are not intended to be subversive, subjective, etc. We live in a society, people are going to use the term "slave" to describe things, people are going to say things you don't like, use terms you don't enjoy. I hate acronyms, I find that it is a way to segment a society or group into those who know them and those who don't. Even the term "LOLWUT", means you need to understand the term "LOL" and where "WUT" comes from. ... And that's my point, as a society, I shouldn't be pushing my preferences onto you. I should be learning to deal with my own emotions and understanding. If it's something that impacts my freedom, then maybe I should bring it up. Calling something a "slave" doesn't mean it impacts your freedom.

natestemen 8y ago
> If it doesn't enhance readability, speed, etc. I disagree. Having terminology that is clear (which master/slave is not) decreases the time needed to spend to get an understanding of whatever it is you're working on. Also related, if someone is offended by terminology then that will slow down their progress in understanding because they first have to process those feelings in order to continue.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- citilife 8y ago
  Master/Slave is clearly defined in any sort of systems programming. You're taught it in school, there's a wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master/slave_(technology) Don't give me that - also as a maintainer, I wouldn't want to work with people who slow me down on terminology issues (when they feel offended, for industry standard terms).