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

  • febra@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 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.

    • Saik0@lemmy.saik0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      That’s not how the terms entered computing though. We always used master in opposition of one or multiple slaves.

      And yet you said this… Acting like you speak for the entirety of industry, when I bring up one specific facet of our industry that isn’t using the term juxtaposition to “slaves”… but rather to other concepts of “master”, you now magically change your tune.

      • febra@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        2 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.