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

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    94 months ago

    That’s not how the terms entered computing though. We always used master in opposition of one or multiple slaves. It implies that one component has control and orders the other one around.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        14 months ago

        I’m not sure where you’re going with this. I haven’t gatekept anything, you can use whatever term you want, that’s none of my business. You can happily read my other comment. To me, “master” makes no sense if there are no “slaves”. That’s why I don’t use it. It doesn’t make sense to use it. You do you, that’s your business.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            14 months ago

            Never said it made me right. Just didn’t make sense to me. You can still use whatever you like, as I do.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                14 months ago

                Look, I come from the hardware part of the industry and have never seen anyone talk about “master records” in software but always about master devices controlling slave devices. I’ll give you that, apparently “master records” are a thing (although I’m curious in what part of the industry). At the same time, it seems so niche and weird to me that there’s no point for me to use it. I’ll stick with main because it just makes more sense and seems a lot more intuitive to people than to think about master records and what not. You do you, I personally absolutely do not care at all what you go with in your projects.