Well, the use of "master"/"slave" in the PTY layer is technically inaccurate - they are two ends of a connection to a single object, over which the "master" and "slave" both have control - and there are certain operations that the "slave" can do that the "master" can't. The whole system would be less confusing if these entities had clearer names, and there's also no binary interface that uses the terms.

My general take has been that we should probably avoid these terms moving forward, but that the technical cost of going through nearly a century’s worth of technical stack and fixing every last reference is probably a pretty technically risky operation.

Technically risky yes but worth it. Inconsistencies in naming make code horrible to work with.

Perfect reason to leave the terminology as it is.

Because anything using the word master must exclusively imply a slave. What about master/apprentice? Maybe the naming of stuff isn't the problem but the lenses that people view things through that distort reality into some stereotype? The glass doesn't have to be half empty. There are infinite colours between black and white. Racism is a behaviour of people and people's behaviour is governed by how they view the world around them.

I've been using git for a long time and this is the first time I have ever considered any sort of racial connection to the naming of the master branch. Last I checked master has more than one definition in the dictionary - which by the way might actually be something worth reading instead of pointlessly causing drama for the sake of marketing. Because let's face it - Microsoft didn't just pull this stunt because they decided to be noble.

Don't forget git's master / slave references, and even the 'offensive' word 'git'.

https://lore.kernel.org/git/CAOAHyQwyXC1Z3v7BZAC+Bq6JBaM7FvB...

http://chng.it/gyDxtJNb - sign this petition!