The term "slave" isn't even a good technical term. It would be better to call it a follower or replica which better approximates it's actual role. Not only is it "politically correct" it's also "technically correct", the best kind of correct.
Of course it might be I who've worked in such a bubble too, but given the number of people here who seem to find it annoying that people are even suggesting not using it, I'm inclined to believe the use of master/slave has remained more common that you think.
Where is this magical place you speak of?
https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=pl&tl=en&js=y&prev...
Slavery is a significant topic in the US. It was a prelude to the civil war; it was abolished within recent memory; and the echoes of racist sentiment still affect the lives of millions: people alive today remember segregation, and both casual and systematic discrimination against African-Americans continue to occur.
This is not a big deal in Poland, which has no such extensive recent history with slavery.
But - for example - in 2015 the Russian ambassador in Warsaw was excoriated in public and summoned to the foreign ministry for his remarks partly blaming Polish policy in the 1930s for contributing to the start of WW2 and the subsequent death of millions of Poles. Now that was a raw nerve.
A different standard does not mean the absence of standards. People who fail to see that, and then mock others, are simply demonstrating a lack of self-awareness.
But that was the point I was arguing for. That US standard is not everyone's standard.
Is it over the top though? It's a references to a deplorable practice that humans do; why shouldn't we strive for something more civil, and more technically correct? The slave of a database isn't the property of the master and subject to its every whim; it's a replica of the data that can do separate, independent things from the master with that data.
> Out of interest, what is your opinion on male/female USB connectors? Does one deserve to get fired if they make a joke about "big dongles"?
As for gendered connectors, the terms themselves don't carry (or shouldn't :() any judgment nor does it's usage. A valid cable, pipe, &c doesn't have to be heterogeneous/hermaphroditic and can be homogeneous. I would hope that the LGBTQ community wouldn't be offended that only M/F ends can "mate", as biological "mating" (i.e. copulation for the purpose of procreation) can only happen between M and F ends, and see it as a judgment on non-procreation intercourse.
However, if there was an issue about the term M/F being a judgment call, it would be responsible for the community (well, all communities, as the terms M/F for connectors goes beyond just electrical connectors) to listen and (slowly) introduce better names.
There is no reason to make a large portion of the population uncomfortable when it literally costs us nothing to change it (over the long run).
So when do we rename 'kill'?
On a serious note, I've never actually understood where the term "hung" comes from in computing. Why is the process "hung" and not simply "stalled" or something else.
The modern interpretation is that system operators need to feel like they have a big penis.
ah
> The modern interpretation is that system operators need to feel like they have a big penis.
I actually didn't even think of it in that regard. I regard hung as in something that is hanging (dangling) from something else.
Killing is not deplorable. Murder is deplorable. (I'm a vegetarian, so I find slaughter for food deplorable too, but I'm in the minority here.)
Out of interest, what is your opinion on male/female USB connectors? Does one deserve to get fired if they make a joke about "big dongles"?