It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

  • realitista@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    The thing is that master has a different connotation in IT than server does. Such as in master/slave pairs for fault tolerance.

    • holgersson@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Fair enough. Im in devops and the first thing I thought about was Jenkins, where “server” and “agent” fit quite well.

      I dont think master/slave is that good of a naming scheme for fault tolerance either, since the “slave” doesnt do work so that the master doesnt have to, but it’s rather an active/reserve kind of thing.

      But I also admit that using different terms that fit best for every usecase would only cause more confusion than good.

      • realitista@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 months ago

        I agree that active/reserve is a better way of saying it, and that’s the way I’ve always said it when working with these systems. Honestly I may have never heard master slave in actual use in 15 years of regularly describing such systems.