It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology’s problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
The thing is that master has a different connotation in IT than server does. Such as in master/slave pairs for fault tolerance.
Yes, both of those may already be servers
Fair enough. Im in devops and the first thing I thought about was Jenkins, where “server” and “agent” fit quite well.
I dont think master/slave is that good of a naming scheme for fault tolerance either, since the “slave” doesnt do work so that the master doesnt have to, but it’s rather an active/reserve kind of thing.
But I also admit that using different terms that fit best for every usecase would only cause more confusion than good.
I agree that active/reserve is a better way of saying it, and that’s the way I’ve always said it when working with these systems. Honestly I may have never heard master slave in actual use in 15 years of regularly describing such systems.