In the case of Kubernetes, I suppose those terms were chosen from the beginning so there was no cost of switching. And hence why no one complained about it.
Which incidentally supports my claim: that people were upset about the cost of changing rather than because of their secret admiration for slavery.
Care to point out any concrete example? Just pick the absolute best example you can imagine. So far none was provided. There's all this talk about "cost" but apparently it's so costly that even providing a concrete example is prohibitively expensive.
> In the case of Kubernetes, I suppose those terms were chosen from the beginning so there was no cost of switching. And hence why no one complained about it.
What's there to complain? Absolutely nothing at all.
> What's there to complain? Absolutely nothing at all.
Well yes, that's my point. We agree on that. In the case of git, I am sure if "main" had always been the convention there would have been nothing to complain about as well. In fact, I am sure the same people who complained about the change from "master" to "main" would have complained about a change from "main" to "master".
What colossal cost do you see in granting users the choice of, say, picking their default branch name instead of being forced to use "master"?
What cost do you see in referring to "blacklists" as "allowlist" instead?
Have you ever noticed that critical projects like Kubernetes managed to adopt clear and unambiguous concepts such as "control plane node" and "worker node" without making dubious remarks regarding "inertia"?
Any argument regarding "inertia" frankly sounds like a lame excuse to stick with bigoted and racially-charged terms without any valid reason other than a refusal to extend the most basic of common courtesies.