This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Master鈥搒lave (technology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 5 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Master/slave (technology) to Master鈥搒lave (technology). The result of the discussion was moved. |
One could argue it should be OK to use the term master and slave for inanimate objects and to avoid it entirely for sentient creatures. After all, there's little harm in enslaving an inanimate device, so protecting them from discriminatory language makes little sense. With people, however, there should be zero tolerance.
The cultural issues that arise from the term in old human-slave-owning jurisdictions all involve enslaved humans. There are a veritable plethora of terms that are acceptable for objects but not people, and I don't see why this is not also an example. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 177.242.142.222 ( talk) 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Who was the first to use these terms in computing? This article does not bring it up. -- Bushido Brown 03:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks,
-Alan 24.184.184.177 ( talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Btw, is there a Wiki Project we could list this under? I'd imagine there is and as such we should add it to that category.
Thanks again,
-Alan 24.184.184.177 ( talk) 03:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As a tech writer, I would be eager to not use "master/slave"... but has anyone found any suitable alternatives being used in the industry? Please add to article if so... wish City of L.A. had done so... ---Ransom (-- 67.91.216.67 ( talk) 18:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC))
"noting that the master/slave terminology accurately reflects what is going on inside the device "
I mean, strictly speaking, it is not a literal description of what is going on. "Master", maybe, but "slave"? No. It is no more "accurate" than "general" and "grunt" or something that is more about simple command authority. Slavery is a more complicated system and transaction. I can understand people saying that they don't feel it is worth the change聽鈥 but to say it is "accurate" in any literal sense is ridiculous. It is one of many loose metaphors for control out of many possible candidates, and is not even as literally accurate as many of them.
And of course, the idea that it causes offense is hardly related to whether or not it is literally true. It is no more "accurate" than "Slavemaster" and "Nigger" but the offense would be there regardless of whether it was "accurate".
Can we get a real citation for people arguing in favor of the technology, not just some opinion of some Wikipedia editor? -- Mr.98 ( talk) 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a technical term [1] no use to invent "nicer" terms on the whims of some uneducated people. It's about machines interacting. No bloodshed聽;-) -- Manorainjan 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The argument that master/slave terminology is not an accurate description because 'Slavery is a more complicated system and transaction' is ridiculous. Oxford dictionary defines slave as: "so strongly influenced by something that they cannot live without it, or cannot make their own decisions," which is an accurate, literal description of how the terms master/slave are used in a technical sense. Whatever 'complicated system and transaction' you're talking about probably does not have any value or relevance to the technical term. "Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it." (George Carlin, Parental Advisory, 1990). 76.88.80.245 ( talk) 00:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Following up on user 67.91.216.67's request, I couldn't find any references to alternative terminology being used. I brainstormed a bit using WordVis, looking for words related to the concepts of "superior" & "subordinate", which though too long & wordy themselves to be good substitutes, still seem to be good, neutral equivalents to "master" & "slave". (Note that "master" is two-syllable & "slave" is one-syllable.) I came up with the shorter-word equivalent pair "ruler" & "ruled".
Wikipedia prohibits posting original research in articles, thus I'm posting here. If someone could please suggest an appropriate external site that I could post this to, I'll do that & we can then see what kind of response my idea gets. Brad ( talk) 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a rather important article as Web Services have become more important in usage across the Internet. There are many rather good sources that exist. Example: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Master+Slave . The article should remove the criticism section due to an irrelevant conversation about the terminology. If the article had more content it might be open to debate, but the term is simply an architecture verbiage that has no reference to Western Slavery. Shaded0 ( talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following from the controversy section because it only eliminates the need for the terminology in that specific instance (e.g. in database replication it still applies). It also violates NPOV because it implies that SATA was in part designed to elimnate the master/slave terminalogy, when in reality the goal was to use superior technology and designs. This also makes it a bit trivial to the subject matter.
With SATA replacing older IDE (PATA) drives, only one drive per connection is possible, eliminating the need for the terminology.
As a side note, I too wish there was better nomenclature for this, but Wikipedia is here to document notable information using well documented, reliable sources, not to spin up a new initiative. Argel1200 ( talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
in addition to the examples already given, would it be useful to add a list of terms used as alternative to master/slave?
i think it would be helpful to show that these terms mean the same thing.
Missing is only that non non consensual slavery is bad bud. With Conses there is nothing bad at therm Master/slave_(BDSM). Also devices are able to switch role witch also happens in BDSM practice. -- MasterLee ( talk) 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that I added "marshal/soldier" to the list of possible alternatives. (I use it in my own and my collaborations' code, e.g. http://projectaltair.org and others.) Comments certainly welcome, here or to jalbert@uvic.ca . 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 142.104.63.19 ( talk) 02:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I have used these terms for decades. I adopted 'target device' or 'target' from the PCI spec' in 1999. In PCI, each board could be an 'initiator', target or both, depending on the design. I since used target device for SPI targets, CAN targets, FPGAs on a parallel bus and so on. In the UK, slavery of old is associated with the Roman invasion, not the much later and smaller one in the 17th/18th centuries. We seemed to have got over that invasion and enslavement and don't get upset with the Italians or demand an apology from them. Far more importantly, real slavery is alive and kicking and around us, not somewhere else far away. Getting upset or 'offended' at technology words is a billionth of what those enslaved people are actually going through, every hour every day right now. I find the lack of perspective offensive but there we go. Anyway, master and target. People master subjects. Dogs have masters. ToaneeM ( talk) 09:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not correct. If an IDE/PATA channel is shared between a master and a slave device, and both devices try to transfer data over the same channel, the master will be preferred. That is why you connected the devices to different channels, if possible.
Citation #22 (correct number at date of this comment) references www.seattlepi.com, and this generates an error 451 from some locations (including UK). Testing with a VPN connection to continental USA showed that the cited reference is accessible within that region. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 80.5.215.68 ( talk) 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Since people keep re-adding news about the "git master" controversy on here: The master branch in git does NOT have an inherently special relationship with the other branches (unlike the examples listed in the article). There is not even a "slave" branch or anything like that (unless you choose to create it yourself of course, but I have never seen anyone doing that in practice). "Master" is merely the default branch when calling "git init". That is exactly the reason why developers are free to delete it and name their branches however they like.
"3.1 Git Branching - Branches in a Nutshell". The "master" branch in Git is not a special branch. It is exactly like any other branch. The only reason nearly every repository has one is that the git init command creates it by default and most people don't bother to change it.
"How do Git branches work? Can I remove the master branch?". there is nothing particularly special about any particular branch (the master branch is just the default one that's created for you when you initialize a repository).
The developer who picked the name "master" in 2005 said the following about why he chose master as the default branch:
@xpasky (June 14, 2020). ""master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective" ( Tweet) 鈥 via Twitter.
Kenter34 ( talk) 14:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this doesn't belong here. This article is about a specific concept in technology. From the lede: "Master/slave is a model of asymmetric communication or control where one device or process controls one or more other devices or processes." This is NOT the case with git branching, this is not an example of it, and including it here confuses the article unnecessarily. This is also self evident from the fact that other earlier version control systems, i.e. subversion, use "trunk". Any information about the use of the term master in version control / git should go into the article on git. If this is confusing to the layman, then maybe we should do a disambiguation at the top of the article. Mvolz ( talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
UNIX:
Linux:
(...and so on. Linux pretty much has the same man pages as UNIX). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether perfect or not, the following is an example of the how much specific terms can be found on the internet. On June 18 2020, the Google search engine returned the following results: 鈥 Sbmeirow 鈥 Talk 鈥 16:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please don't spam the talk page. Thanks 198.48.136.149 ( talk) 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Sbmeirow added an unbalanced banner, after previously having added one last week which was reverted. I'm confused about how the article is unbalanced. Terminological concerns about master/slave have received extensive coverage in the media in the past month ( https://www.google.com/search?q=master/slave&tbm=nws), so it does seem to be a notable topic. If there are reliable sources arguing that the term "master/slave" should be maintained , those can be added, but I am not aware of any. 鈥 Enervation ( talk) 01:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This article describes an obsolete technological mindset in modern distributed computing. For example, services following modern cloud-native patterns and microservices (reactive microservices, async messaging, architecture for scale, etc) can run headless (without the controller), because the state is distributed, replicated, and asynchronous.
The article should be renamed " Primary/Replica (technology)". The Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), an umbrella for 1000's of technologies and computer science engineers, promotes a "primary/replica" mindset. The "master/slave" could be a section heading (historical), but the technology world has moved on from legacy system architectures, concepts, and terminology. My argument is based on technological reality. I acknowledge and support "BLM" values in modern computing and society. But a technical conversation is important too. Nmclough ( talk) 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Moved the page.
As you can see from the content of the article and by following the links, people (technological standard companies, the state of California, and numerous special interest groups) have been requesting this for at least 15 years.
The slave trade has been officially abolished for nearly 200 years.
Words like Floppy disk, Netscape, Napster, and MySpace enter the language almost overnight, and then they quickly become obsolete and are forgotten.
The master/slave terminology is a hold-over from a time when this was thought to be the natural order of the word, and it was unquestioned received wisdom that some people were masters and some were slaves and this was right and good.
However, there is evidence that there were objections to this terminology nearly 2000 years ago (See: Matthew 23:10, Galations 3:28).
Anyone searching for master/slave will still be able to find the page.
Revert if you like, or move it somewhere better, but this issue is not going away any time soon.
By using master/slave in the name of the article, Wikipedia unintentionally chooses the side condoning it, and its biased viewpoint was flagged.
(I removed the flag; although it still contains bias, it is no longer so egregious.)
Many of the arguments against the change are slippery-slopes -- if we allow this change, it will lead to x and y, but this is a well-known fallacy, and should be taken with a grain of salt. [1] Mechachleopteryx ( talk) 11:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of effort has gone into discussing whether this phenomenon ought to be called something else. But it is not Wikipedia's task to choose the terminology. We are to describe the phenomenon using the terms that are used by others. I came to this article to get knowledge about the roles master and slave in communication connections. The abhorrent history of enslaving people from Africa in America were not in my mind at all. And it shouldn't have been.
About the moot point: The term blacklist implies that black is bad. In some sense this term has a bad effect. Saying that a connection end-point is a slave does not imply that people should be enslaved. Some people seem to have seen a similarity between the role of the human slave and the role of the connection end-point. So they called the connection end-point a slave. This doesn't say anything about the morality of enslaving people. If some people are disturbed by the word slave being used in this new way, then that is caused by a pure misunderstanding of what is happening.
-- Ettrig ( talk) 09:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
blacklist
just to exclude certain hardware, because the software doesn鈥檛 support it. The used hardware isn鈥檛 鈥渂ad鈥, the program just won鈥檛 work on it as expected. Likewise, if I put certain websites on my 8-year-old child鈥檚 internet filter鈥檚 whitelist, these aren鈥檛 necessarily 鈥済ood鈥 websites, just not bad.This political correctness has gone too far. I just discovered today that ARM replaced all occurrences of Master/Slave in their AXI specification document. It got changed to Manager/Subordinate, this is confusing and ridiculous. I have never ever associated the terminology with slavery or any kind of oppression. What next? People are going to have their Masters degrees changed to Managers degrees??? 86.130.90.94 ( talk) 22:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The contents of this article are disproportionately represented by (recent)(localized) American politics rather than actually explaining the nature of the technology. 96.55.138.35 ( talk) 21:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
`By the 21st century, it had become a subject of controversy`
Nonetheless, all three sources cited were written in summer 2020. This sentence is misleading as it generalises a relatively recent fashion with a whole century. In other words, look at a revision of this article from before 2019, if it were a long-term problem, it would have mentioned way before. But it doesn't. This so-called controversy of the 21st century started with the influence of the black lives movement to re-write computing terminology. So at least correct it to specify the real dates from when this `controversy' started. 79.71.60.124 ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Is the terminology used by apache solr https://solr.apache.org/guide/8_8/index-replication.html (although they need to update their images as of 2022-08-19). Pier4r ( talk) 13:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I have trimmed the section on the naming controversy, but I expect my changes to be contested, so I wanted to post my rationale here. The terminology debate is clearly relevant enough to be mentioned, but I agree with many of the comments above that it is 1. not germane to the topic of the general principle of two or more tasks in this relationship, or examples of that principle; and 2. highly Western centric and an example of recentism. Another issue was that it used many primary sources to establish different existing terminology for the master/slave concept, but only some of those sources established that it was a replacement term, versus simply alternative terms, many of which predate the wider controversy. I left the Python, Google, GitHub, and Linux examples as I think these are particularly large and well-known projects, that inform the reader of how influential the campaign had become. Ovinus ( talk) 20:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This naming controversy is idiotic. --聽Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.108.114 ( talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Master/slave (technology) 鈫 Master鈥搒lave (technology) 鈥 MOS:/. Master and slave (technology) is acceptable as well. 鈥 LaundryPizza03 ( d c虅) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The article currently says, "...although in the context of version control, the term master simply refers to the gold master, a term borrowed from the recording industry which refers to the final mixed version of a recording, and does not have a corresponding slave."
No source is cited for this, and whoever wrote this didn't stop to think, "Hmm, I wonder where the term `master' in `gold master' came from?" The word "master" is older than both its computer usage and its recording usage, and has the same language origin, no matter how you cut it. So yes, "gold master" is still related to "slave", even if "slave" wasn't used in the recording context.
I've seen this argument before online and it's IMO just a lazy way to dismiss the issue, and not rooted in facts.
recommend deleting 2604:3D08:6B7F:DEB0:CCEC:4E0B:D65A:D9CC ( talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Master鈥搒lave (technology) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources:聽 Google ( books聽路 news聽路 scholar聽路 free images聽路 WP聽refs)聽路 FENS聽路 JSTOR聽路 TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 5 December 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved from Master/slave (technology) to Master鈥搒lave (technology). The result of the discussion was moved. |
One could argue it should be OK to use the term master and slave for inanimate objects and to avoid it entirely for sentient creatures. After all, there's little harm in enslaving an inanimate device, so protecting them from discriminatory language makes little sense. With people, however, there should be zero tolerance.
The cultural issues that arise from the term in old human-slave-owning jurisdictions all involve enslaved humans. There are a veritable plethora of terms that are acceptable for objects but not people, and I don't see why this is not also an example. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 177.242.142.222 ( talk) 23:27, 7 April 2022 (UTC)
Who was the first to use these terms in computing? This article does not bring it up. -- Bushido Brown 03:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks,
-Alan 24.184.184.177 ( talk) 03:49, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
Btw, is there a Wiki Project we could list this under? I'd imagine there is and as such we should add it to that category.
Thanks again,
-Alan 24.184.184.177 ( talk) 03:53, 4 July 2008 (UTC)
As a tech writer, I would be eager to not use "master/slave"... but has anyone found any suitable alternatives being used in the industry? Please add to article if so... wish City of L.A. had done so... ---Ransom (-- 67.91.216.67 ( talk) 18:03, 29 September 2008 (UTC))
"noting that the master/slave terminology accurately reflects what is going on inside the device "
I mean, strictly speaking, it is not a literal description of what is going on. "Master", maybe, but "slave"? No. It is no more "accurate" than "general" and "grunt" or something that is more about simple command authority. Slavery is a more complicated system and transaction. I can understand people saying that they don't feel it is worth the change聽鈥 but to say it is "accurate" in any literal sense is ridiculous. It is one of many loose metaphors for control out of many possible candidates, and is not even as literally accurate as many of them.
And of course, the idea that it causes offense is hardly related to whether or not it is literally true. It is no more "accurate" than "Slavemaster" and "Nigger" but the offense would be there regardless of whether it was "accurate".
Can we get a real citation for people arguing in favor of the technology, not just some opinion of some Wikipedia editor? -- Mr.98 ( talk) 01:48, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
It is a technical term [1] no use to invent "nicer" terms on the whims of some uneducated people. It's about machines interacting. No bloodshed聽;-) -- Manorainjan 22:34, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
The argument that master/slave terminology is not an accurate description because 'Slavery is a more complicated system and transaction' is ridiculous. Oxford dictionary defines slave as: "so strongly influenced by something that they cannot live without it, or cannot make their own decisions," which is an accurate, literal description of how the terms master/slave are used in a technical sense. Whatever 'complicated system and transaction' you're talking about probably does not have any value or relevance to the technical term. "Americans have trouble facing the truth, so they invent a kind of a soft language to protect themselves from it." (George Carlin, Parental Advisory, 1990). 76.88.80.245 ( talk) 00:40, 29 September 2021 (UTC)
Following up on user 67.91.216.67's request, I couldn't find any references to alternative terminology being used. I brainstormed a bit using WordVis, looking for words related to the concepts of "superior" & "subordinate", which though too long & wordy themselves to be good substitutes, still seem to be good, neutral equivalents to "master" & "slave". (Note that "master" is two-syllable & "slave" is one-syllable.) I came up with the shorter-word equivalent pair "ruler" & "ruled".
Wikipedia prohibits posting original research in articles, thus I'm posting here. If someone could please suggest an appropriate external site that I could post this to, I'll do that & we can then see what kind of response my idea gets. Brad ( talk) 21:58, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
This is a rather important article as Web Services have become more important in usage across the Internet. There are many rather good sources that exist. Example: http://www.mongodb.org/display/DOCS/Master+Slave . The article should remove the criticism section due to an irrelevant conversation about the terminology. If the article had more content it might be open to debate, but the term is simply an architecture verbiage that has no reference to Western Slavery. Shaded0 ( talk) 02:14, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
I removed the following from the controversy section because it only eliminates the need for the terminology in that specific instance (e.g. in database replication it still applies). It also violates NPOV because it implies that SATA was in part designed to elimnate the master/slave terminalogy, when in reality the goal was to use superior technology and designs. This also makes it a bit trivial to the subject matter.
With SATA replacing older IDE (PATA) drives, only one drive per connection is possible, eliminating the need for the terminology.
As a side note, I too wish there was better nomenclature for this, but Wikipedia is here to document notable information using well documented, reliable sources, not to spin up a new initiative. Argel1200 ( talk) 19:25, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
in addition to the examples already given, would it be useful to add a list of terms used as alternative to master/slave?
i think it would be helpful to show that these terms mean the same thing.
Missing is only that non non consensual slavery is bad bud. With Conses there is nothing bad at therm Master/slave_(BDSM). Also devices are able to switch role witch also happens in BDSM practice. -- MasterLee ( talk) 16:41, 24 September 2018 (UTC)
Just a note that I added "marshal/soldier" to the list of possible alternatives. (I use it in my own and my collaborations' code, e.g. http://projectaltair.org and others.) Comments certainly welcome, here or to jalbert@uvic.ca . 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 142.104.63.19 ( talk) 02:38, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I have used these terms for decades. I adopted 'target device' or 'target' from the PCI spec' in 1999. In PCI, each board could be an 'initiator', target or both, depending on the design. I since used target device for SPI targets, CAN targets, FPGAs on a parallel bus and so on. In the UK, slavery of old is associated with the Roman invasion, not the much later and smaller one in the 17th/18th centuries. We seemed to have got over that invasion and enslavement and don't get upset with the Italians or demand an apology from them. Far more importantly, real slavery is alive and kicking and around us, not somewhere else far away. Getting upset or 'offended' at technology words is a billionth of what those enslaved people are actually going through, every hour every day right now. I find the lack of perspective offensive but there we go. Anyway, master and target. People master subjects. Dogs have masters. ToaneeM ( talk) 09:15, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
This is not correct. If an IDE/PATA channel is shared between a master and a slave device, and both devices try to transfer data over the same channel, the master will be preferred. That is why you connected the devices to different channels, if possible.
Citation #22 (correct number at date of this comment) references www.seattlepi.com, and this generates an error 451 from some locations (including UK). Testing with a VPN connection to continental USA showed that the cited reference is accessible within that region. 鈥斅燩receding unsigned comment added by 80.5.215.68 ( talk) 19:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Since people keep re-adding news about the "git master" controversy on here: The master branch in git does NOT have an inherently special relationship with the other branches (unlike the examples listed in the article). There is not even a "slave" branch or anything like that (unless you choose to create it yourself of course, but I have never seen anyone doing that in practice). "Master" is merely the default branch when calling "git init". That is exactly the reason why developers are free to delete it and name their branches however they like.
"3.1 Git Branching - Branches in a Nutshell". The "master" branch in Git is not a special branch. It is exactly like any other branch. The only reason nearly every repository has one is that the git init command creates it by default and most people don't bother to change it.
"How do Git branches work? Can I remove the master branch?". there is nothing particularly special about any particular branch (the master branch is just the default one that's created for you when you initialize a repository).
The developer who picked the name "master" in 2005 said the following about why he chose master as the default branch:
@xpasky (June 14, 2020). ""master" as in e.g. "master recording". Perhaps you could say the original, but viewed from the production process perspective" ( Tweet) 鈥 via Twitter.
Kenter34 ( talk) 14:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, this doesn't belong here. This article is about a specific concept in technology. From the lede: "Master/slave is a model of asymmetric communication or control where one device or process controls one or more other devices or processes." This is NOT the case with git branching, this is not an example of it, and including it here confuses the article unnecessarily. This is also self evident from the fact that other earlier version control systems, i.e. subversion, use "trunk". Any information about the use of the term master in version control / git should go into the article on git. If this is confusing to the layman, then maybe we should do a disambiguation at the top of the article. Mvolz ( talk) 15:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
UNIX:
Linux:
(...and so on. Linux pretty much has the same man pages as UNIX). -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)
Whether perfect or not, the following is an example of the how much specific terms can be found on the internet. On June 18 2020, the Google search engine returned the following results: 鈥 Sbmeirow 鈥 Talk 鈥 16:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
References
I'm just saying. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)
Please don't spam the talk page. Thanks 198.48.136.149 ( talk) 18:45, 3 February 2021 (UTC)
Sbmeirow added an unbalanced banner, after previously having added one last week which was reverted. I'm confused about how the article is unbalanced. Terminological concerns about master/slave have received extensive coverage in the media in the past month ( https://www.google.com/search?q=master/slave&tbm=nws), so it does seem to be a notable topic. If there are reliable sources arguing that the term "master/slave" should be maintained , those can be added, but I am not aware of any. 鈥 Enervation ( talk) 01:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)
This article describes an obsolete technological mindset in modern distributed computing. For example, services following modern cloud-native patterns and microservices (reactive microservices, async messaging, architecture for scale, etc) can run headless (without the controller), because the state is distributed, replicated, and asynchronous.
The article should be renamed " Primary/Replica (technology)". The Cloud Native Computing Foundation (CNCF), an umbrella for 1000's of technologies and computer science engineers, promotes a "primary/replica" mindset. The "master/slave" could be a section heading (historical), but the technology world has moved on from legacy system architectures, concepts, and terminology. My argument is based on technological reality. I acknowledge and support "BLM" values in modern computing and society. But a technical conversation is important too. Nmclough ( talk) 12:52, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
Moved the page.
As you can see from the content of the article and by following the links, people (technological standard companies, the state of California, and numerous special interest groups) have been requesting this for at least 15 years.
The slave trade has been officially abolished for nearly 200 years.
Words like Floppy disk, Netscape, Napster, and MySpace enter the language almost overnight, and then they quickly become obsolete and are forgotten.
The master/slave terminology is a hold-over from a time when this was thought to be the natural order of the word, and it was unquestioned received wisdom that some people were masters and some were slaves and this was right and good.
However, there is evidence that there were objections to this terminology nearly 2000 years ago (See: Matthew 23:10, Galations 3:28).
Anyone searching for master/slave will still be able to find the page.
Revert if you like, or move it somewhere better, but this issue is not going away any time soon.
By using master/slave in the name of the article, Wikipedia unintentionally chooses the side condoning it, and its biased viewpoint was flagged.
(I removed the flag; although it still contains bias, it is no longer so egregious.)
Many of the arguments against the change are slippery-slopes -- if we allow this change, it will lead to x and y, but this is a well-known fallacy, and should be taken with a grain of salt. [1] Mechachleopteryx ( talk) 11:53, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
A lot of effort has gone into discussing whether this phenomenon ought to be called something else. But it is not Wikipedia's task to choose the terminology. We are to describe the phenomenon using the terms that are used by others. I came to this article to get knowledge about the roles master and slave in communication connections. The abhorrent history of enslaving people from Africa in America were not in my mind at all. And it shouldn't have been.
About the moot point: The term blacklist implies that black is bad. In some sense this term has a bad effect. Saying that a connection end-point is a slave does not imply that people should be enslaved. Some people seem to have seen a similarity between the role of the human slave and the role of the connection end-point. So they called the connection end-point a slave. This doesn't say anything about the morality of enslaving people. If some people are disturbed by the word slave being used in this new way, then that is caused by a pure misunderstanding of what is happening.
-- Ettrig ( talk) 09:04, 3 March 2021 (UTC)
blacklist
just to exclude certain hardware, because the software doesn鈥檛 support it. The used hardware isn鈥檛 鈥渂ad鈥, the program just won鈥檛 work on it as expected. Likewise, if I put certain websites on my 8-year-old child鈥檚 internet filter鈥檚 whitelist, these aren鈥檛 necessarily 鈥済ood鈥 websites, just not bad.This political correctness has gone too far. I just discovered today that ARM replaced all occurrences of Master/Slave in their AXI specification document. It got changed to Manager/Subordinate, this is confusing and ridiculous. I have never ever associated the terminology with slavery or any kind of oppression. What next? People are going to have their Masters degrees changed to Managers degrees??? 86.130.90.94 ( talk) 22:32, 29 April 2021 (UTC)
The contents of this article are disproportionately represented by (recent)(localized) American politics rather than actually explaining the nature of the technology. 96.55.138.35 ( talk) 21:52, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
`By the 21st century, it had become a subject of controversy`
Nonetheless, all three sources cited were written in summer 2020. This sentence is misleading as it generalises a relatively recent fashion with a whole century. In other words, look at a revision of this article from before 2019, if it were a long-term problem, it would have mentioned way before. But it doesn't. This so-called controversy of the 21st century started with the influence of the black lives movement to re-write computing terminology. So at least correct it to specify the real dates from when this `controversy' started. 79.71.60.124 ( talk) 21:32, 13 January 2022 (UTC)
Is the terminology used by apache solr https://solr.apache.org/guide/8_8/index-replication.html (although they need to update their images as of 2022-08-19). Pier4r ( talk) 13:35, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
I have trimmed the section on the naming controversy, but I expect my changes to be contested, so I wanted to post my rationale here. The terminology debate is clearly relevant enough to be mentioned, but I agree with many of the comments above that it is 1. not germane to the topic of the general principle of two or more tasks in this relationship, or examples of that principle; and 2. highly Western centric and an example of recentism. Another issue was that it used many primary sources to establish different existing terminology for the master/slave concept, but only some of those sources established that it was a replacement term, versus simply alternative terms, many of which predate the wider controversy. I left the Python, Google, GitHub, and Linux examples as I think these are particularly large and well-known projects, that inform the reader of how influential the campaign had become. Ovinus ( talk) 20:01, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
This naming controversy is idiotic. --聽Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.74.108.114 ( talk) 18:07, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( closed by non-admin page mover) NmWTfs85lXusaybq ( talk) 02:11, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
Master/slave (technology) 鈫 Master鈥搒lave (technology) 鈥 MOS:/. Master and slave (technology) is acceptable as well. 鈥 LaundryPizza03 ( d c虅) 01:38, 5 December 2023 (UTC)
The article currently says, "...although in the context of version control, the term master simply refers to the gold master, a term borrowed from the recording industry which refers to the final mixed version of a recording, and does not have a corresponding slave."
No source is cited for this, and whoever wrote this didn't stop to think, "Hmm, I wonder where the term `master' in `gold master' came from?" The word "master" is older than both its computer usage and its recording usage, and has the same language origin, no matter how you cut it. So yes, "gold master" is still related to "slave", even if "slave" wasn't used in the recording context.
I've seen this argument before online and it's IMO just a lazy way to dismiss the issue, and not rooted in facts.
recommend deleting 2604:3D08:6B7F:DEB0:CCEC:4E0B:D65A:D9CC ( talk) 20:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)