It wouldn't be hard to start a movement and get people to sign-up for a demand to change a word like allowlist to something else, and then jump on the something else to change it again.
There is no possible way that any rational human, whom understands the language in question, English in this case, could mistake Master and Slave, as used in technology, for the context of non-voluntary human slavery. In the same vain Whitelist / Blacklist doesn't have the same context being misappropriated to it, by peopl
How far are we willing to go to bubble wrap the world so no one can get offended, over anything, even by accident, and their own willingness to not understand?
We're not as it happens. You might have noticed but a LOT of people seem to be deeply offended by this. The choice isn't about whether to offend fewer people, it's about who to offend and who has the worst reasons for taking offence.
As TFS said about one of the points, it's a negative cost change since the new terminology is clearer.
Same for master/slave versus primary/replica. The latter is much more accurate, the replica replicates the primary. It doesn't do stuff for the master.
Not in the case of I2C bus (and many other communications buses). The master controls the bus and dictates when others - the slaves - do actual actions for the master. They are in no ways replicates of the primary, as that defeats the entire purpose of multiple different devices sharing a common communications bus. But I guess it's still racist somehow, even though it is 100 times more appropriate and descriptive as compared to "primary/replica".
What if allowlist offends me / my group? (Score:5, Insightful)
There is no possible way that any rational human, whom understands the language in question, English in this case, could mistake Master and Slave, as used in technology, for the context of non-voluntary human slavery. In the same vain Whitelist / Blacklist doesn't have the same context being misappropriated to it, by peopl
Re: (Score:1, Troll)
How far are we willing to go to bubble wrap the world so no one can get offended, over anything, even by accident, and their own willingness to not understand?
We're not as it happens. You might have noticed but a LOT of people seem to be deeply offended by this. The choice isn't about whether to offend fewer people, it's about who to offend and who has the worst reasons for taking offence.
As TFS said about one of the points, it's a negative cost change since the new terminology is clearer.
Same for master/sl
Re: (Score:2)
Same for master/slave versus primary/replica. The latter is much more accurate, the replica replicates the primary. It doesn't do stuff for the master.
Not in the case of I2C bus (and many other communications buses). The master controls the bus and dictates when others - the slaves - do actual actions for the master. They are in no ways replicates of the primary, as that defeats the entire purpose of multiple different devices sharing a common communications bus. But I guess it's still racist somehow, even though it is 100 times more appropriate and descriptive as compared to "primary/replica".
Re: (Score:2)
Not in the case of I2C bus
Well, excuse me for reading TFS. Last I checked, Drupal wasn't an I2C bus.
Re:What if allowlist offends me / my group? (Score:3)
Well, excuse me for reading TFS. Last I checked, Drupal wasn't an I2C bus.
Nor are Android, Python, Go or GitHub. But there's a crap-ton of embedded software on GitHub.
Master and slave are part of the freaking specification [i2c.info], so I guess you will eschew any product that uses the I2C bus since it's racist.