Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.arch.embedded > #30187 > unrolled thread

Alternative terms for master and slave

Back to article view | Back to comp.arch.embedded

Contents

  Alternative terms for master and slave Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> - 2020-12-15 01:32 -0800
    Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Reinhardt Behm <rbehm@hushmail.com> - 2020-12-15 17:56 +0800
    Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2020-12-15 11:57 +0200
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave George Neuner <gneuner2@comcast.net> - 2020-12-15 17:38 -0500
        Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-12-15 15:33 -0800
    Re: Alternative terms for master and slave David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-12-15 11:59 +0100
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-12-15 15:07 +0000
        Re: Alternative terms for master and slave David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-12-15 16:41 +0100
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave upsidedown@downunder.com - 2020-12-15 18:07 +0200
        Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-12-15 10:59 -0700
          Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Robert Roland <fake@ddress.no> - 2020-12-18 15:32 +0100
            Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-12-18 07:56 -0700
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-12-15 08:34 -0800
        Re: Alternative terms for master and slave David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-12-15 19:57 +0100
          Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-12-15 19:13 +0000
            Re: Alternative terms for master and slave David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-12-16 08:59 +0100
              Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Theo <theom+news@chiark.greenend.org.uk> - 2020-12-17 17:04 +0000
                Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-12-17 11:35 -0700
                Re: Alternative terms for master and slave David Brown <david.brown@hesbynett.no> - 2020-12-17 20:25 +0100
        Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Niklas Holsti <niklas.holsti@tidorum.invalid> - 2020-12-15 21:28 +0200
          Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Tom Gardner <spamjunk@blueyonder.co.uk> - 2020-12-15 19:37 +0000
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave kegs@provalid.com (Kent Dickey) - 2020-12-19 15:41 -0600
        Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2020-12-20 17:39 +0200
          Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Grant Edwards <invalid@invalid.invalid> - 2020-12-20 18:17 +0000
            Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2020-12-20 23:23 +0200
              Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-12-20 23:56 +0100
                Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2020-12-21 17:29 +0200
                  Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-12-21 23:44 +0100
                    Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> - 2020-12-22 23:36 +0200
    Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> - 2020-12-15 06:30 -0700
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-12-15 22:26 +0100
    Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-12-15 08:55 -0800
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Michael Kellett <mk@mkesc.co.uk> - 2020-12-17 07:30 +0000
        Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Rick C <gnuarm.deletethisbit@gmail.com> - 2020-12-17 17:58 -0800
    Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Brett <ggtgp@yahoo.com> - 2020-12-19 02:03 +0000
      Re: Alternative terms for master and slave Hans-Bernhard Bröker <HBBroeker@t-online.de> - 2020-12-20 01:08 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#30201

On 15/12/20 19:28, Niklas Holsti wrote:
> On 2020-12-15 18:34, Rick C wrote:
>> On Tuesday, December 15, 2020 at 5:59:42 AM UTC-5, David Brown
>> wrote:
>>>>
>>> The software world is full of terms that can offend people if
>>> people choose to be offended.
>>
>> Sorry, I stopped listening to you after you showed extreme
>> ignorance.
>>
>> Yeah, people can be offended by things we think of as innocent.  I
>> recall a female assembler being offended by the use of the terms male
>> and female for connectors.  I tried to reason with her for a bit,
>> then I asked, "OK, what should we call them?"  That completely
>> changed the tone of the conversation and we worked something out.
>>
>> I don't recall the terms we came up with, but the conversation made
>> her happy and we never had that conversation again.  Win-win.
> "Pin" and "socket" should be clear and offend no-one.

Male and female and hermaphroditic connectors.

Male jack plugs, female jack sockets.

Trigger words are everywhere.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30226

In article <rra4up$okg$1@dont-email.me>,
David Brown  <david.brown@hesbynett.no> wrote:
>On 15/12/2020 10:32, Brad Eckert wrote:
>> It seems the terms *master* and *slave* are being phased out of the
>> tech lexicon with help from Google. I know this is like herding cats,
>> but I have a proposal for a terminology change.
>> 
>> Just replace *master* and *slave* with *Alice* and *Bob*
>> respectively. *Bob* attaches to *Alice* and then *Alice* tells *Bob*
>> what to do, so it's easy to remember. Isn't that more fun than
>> *master* and *slave*?
>> 
>> In SPI terminology, *mosi* and *miso* become *aobi* and *aibo*. If
>> you have multiple Bobs on the bus, it gets better. Alice has a
>> meeting with the Bobs.
>> 
>
>The software world is full of terms that can offend people if people
>choose to be offended.  Just look at processes on *nix systems - you get
>daemons and zombies, you stop a process by killing it, parent processes
>can't die until all their children are dead (or else the children turn
>into zombies), and so on.  I remember someone on my CSP course at
>university complaining about the terms "angelic choice" and "demonic
>choice".

IDE drives are configured as masters and slaves.  All end users had to
deal with setting up drives as "masters" or "slaves".  It's a problem for
tech support.  I don't doubt racist people did racist things with these
terms.

It's not so much that it only affects the small number of people designing
and building machines, it's that the terminology often gets out into the
rest of the world where it can be unnecessarily problematic.  It's a
sign of maturity that the industry sees no reason to go out of its way
to be offensive and childish to end users.

In my software, I have a Monarch which tells Serfs what to do.  It's very
useful since no one else uses those terms, so I always know what it's
referring to.

I wouldn't spend time redefining old standards, but for new standards, just
pick different words.  PCI master/slave became PCIe
initiator/requester/transmitter and completer/receiver.  What's the problem
with doing this?  PCIe is nearly 20 years old now--did anyone even realize
this was being done?  PCIe still refers to the PCI concepts using Master
and Slave--they didn't redefine anything, they just stopped using it for
anything PCIe-only.  And SATA got rid of master/slave, too.  And so on...

Basically, industry has already been doing this for more than two decades.

And the Alice and Bob stuff is like throwing a tantrum.

Kent

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30228

On 12/19/2020 23:41, Kent Dickey wrote:
 > ...
>...  And SATA got rid of master/slave, too.  And so on...
> 

SATA does just a single device per link so no "master/slave" to
be talked about (and the ATA standards talk of device 0 and 1,
no master/slave there either IIRC since > 20 years).

However you can connect two ATA/SATA bridges to an ATA port
which does device 0 and 1.... and device 1 (the "slave") will not
always work just fine, depends on which version of the bridge you
combine for device 1 (slave) with which for device 0 (master)....
That for the only truly working bridge on the market from Marvell.

:D :D

So much talk about that politically (in?) correct nonsense.
Context is enough offend or not offend anyone, the choice of words
is actually irrelevant. Those who want to offend will find ways to do it
using any sort of words and those who want to play offended victims
won't run out of "offensive" words either. Words exist and do have 
meaning, banning a certain word is outright stupid. It is the messages
people convey which can be offensive, not the words.

Dimiter

======================================================
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
======================================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30229

On 2020-12-20, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:

> SATA does just a single device per link so no "master/slave" to
> be talked about

Odd. All my SATA cables have _two_ ends, and there's a device at each
end. I was under the distinct impression that at one end is the master
and at the other end there's a slave.

There are are tons of other point-point protocols that use the
master/slave nomenclature, even if SATA doesn't.

--
Grant

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30230

On 12/20/2020 20:17, Grant Edwards wrote:
> On 2020-12-20, Dimiter_Popoff <dp@tgi-sci.com> wrote:
> 
>> SATA does just a single device per link so no "master/slave" to
>> be talked about
> 
> Odd. All my SATA cables have _two_ ends, and there's a device at each
> end. I was under the distinct impression that at one end is the master
> and at the other end there's a slave.
> 
> There are are tons of other point-point protocols that use the
> master/slave nomenclature, even if SATA doesn't.
> 
> --
> Grant
> 

Hah, you may call them that of course, some people may even be
calling them that.

But for people familiar with ATA and subsequently SATA and in the
context above "master" and "slave" refer to device 0 and device 1
on the ATA cable, you probably remember your parallel ATA (aka IDE)
cables having 3 connectors: one for the host, one for device 0
(which some called "master") and one for device 1 (which some
called "slave"). Actually I don't know where that master/slave
came from, perhaps from the times ATA was called IDE which was before
I used any ATA drives in our products (used SCSI back then, until
they stopped at 810MB or so for 2.5" drives).

Dimiter

======================================================
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
======================================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30231

Am 20.12.2020 um 22:23 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff:

> But for people familiar with ATA and subsequently SATA and in the
> context above "master" and "slave" refer to device 0 and device 1
> on the ATA cable, 

Not really.  Parallel ATA learnd this ("cable select") as an option long 
after the master/slave roles had been assigned.

The primary choice was made by jumpers on the devices, with three 
options: master, slave, or cable-select.  Only if both devices were 
jumpered CS would their position on the cable have any significance.

The master/slave terminology was attached because device 1 was unable to 
work on its own.  I.e. a single device would always have to be device 0.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30232

On 12/21/2020 0:56, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 20.12.2020 um 22:23 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff:
> 
>> But for people familiar with ATA and subsequently SATA and in the
>> context above "master" and "slave" refer to device 0 and device 1
>> on the ATA cable, 
> 
> Not really.  Parallel ATA learnd this ("cable select") as an option long 
> after the master/slave roles had been assigned.
> 
> The primary choice was made by jumpers on the devices, with three 
> options: master, slave, or cable-select.  Only if both devices were 
> jumpered CS would their position on the cable have any significance.
> 
> The master/slave terminology was attached because device 1 was unable to 
> work on its own.  I.e. a single device would always have to be device 0.
> 

Not so. Clearly you have never designed in ATA drives.

The "cable select" signal is just a pin connected to the host and to
one of the two devices, thus enabling them to know which of the two is
device 0 and which is device 1 (lookup d1153r18, it is explained well
enough there).
The jumpers on the devices are to override the cable select connection
and are unnecessary on correctly designed hosts/devices.

And of course you can have a single device on an ATA cable which
is device 1, although it is rarely done and typically unnecessary.

Dimiter


======================================================
Dimiter Popoff, TGI             http://www.tgi-sci.com
======================================================
http://www.flickr.com/photos/didi_tgi/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30233

Am 21.12.2020 um 16:29 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff:

> Not so. Clearly you have never designed in ATA drives.

The level of your arrogance never disappoints.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30235

On 12/22/2020 0:44, Hans-Bernhard Bröker wrote:
> Am 21.12.2020 um 16:29 schrieb Dimiter_Popoff:
> 
>> Not so. Clearly you have never designed in ATA drives.
> 
> The level of your arrogance never disappoints.

Sorry, did not mean to be arrogant. I can see it can be interpreted
like this though, I must have been thinking on all the history I have
had with ATA drives, CPLD interfaces and drivers I have been doing for
them. Not very interesting or complex to do but quite bulky.
Sorry again if I offended you.

Dimiter

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30191

On 12/15/2020 2:32 AM, Brad Eckert wrote:
> Just replace *master* and *slave* with *Alice* and *Bob* respectively. *Bob*
> attaches to *Alice* and then *Alice* tells *Bob* what to do, so it's easy to
> remember. Isn't that more fun than *master* and *slave*?

Doesn't that, also, imply a sexist interpretation (Alice being the driver of
the relationship?)

Perhaps "Pat" and "Chris"?

Then we can have Pat-Chris Flip Flops!  (and whatever innuendo attaches,
there!)

> In SPI terminology, *mosi* and *miso* become *aobi* and *aibo*. If you have
> multiple Bobs on the bus, it gets better. Alice has a meeting with the
> Bobs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30202

Am 15.12.2020 um 14:30 schrieb Don Y:
> Then we can have Pat-Chris Flip Flops!  (and whatever innuendo attaches,
> there!)

Of course we can't.  Flip-flops are banned from any sane workplace 
because of safety regulations.  Shoes have to be firmly attached to feet 
and have to offer at least a modicum of protection against falling tools.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30196

Here is another example.  What do you think of using the term "carnal knowledge" to refer to knowledge of the inner workings of a function?  

This was a real discussion in a language forum.  People were tossing the term around and I didn't know what they meant by it.  I looked it up and found it's actually a term from mostly legal usage and fairly archaic.  I have a relatively large vocabulary and the group is international, so I figured I would not be the only person needing to look it up.  Since the only definition of carnal knowledge is to have intercourse with someone as in a trial, "Did you have carnal knowledge of the victim?"  

That just sounded strange to me.  We give new meanings to words often, typically a closely related term that is given a particular shade of meaning in a technical context.  I could not figure how anyone would think a euphemism for the sex act would be an appropriate term to requisition for use in discussing technical issues. 

I was accused of being a prude and seemingly in line with international opinions of people from the US.  Many of the supporters of this new term indicated it was perfectly clear to them, so obviously must be clear to everyone.  It was one of the oddest conversations I've had on the Internet.  

-- 

Rick C.

+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30213

On 15/12/2020 16:55, Rick C wrote:
> Here is another example.  What do you think of using the term "carnal knowledge" to refer to knowledge of the inner workings of a function?
> 
> This was a real discussion in a language forum.  People were tossing the term around and I didn't know what they meant by it.  I looked it up and found it's actually a term from mostly legal usage and fairly archaic.  I have a relatively large vocabulary and the group is international, so I figured I would not be the only person needing to look it up.  Since the only definition of carnal knowledge is to have intercourse with someone as in a trial, "Did you have carnal knowledge of the victim?"
> 
> That just sounded strange to me.  We give new meanings to words often, typically a closely related term that is given a particular shade of meaning in a technical context.  I could not figure how anyone would think a euphemism for the sex act would be an appropriate term to requisition for use in discussing technical issues.
> 
> I was accused of being a prude and seemingly in line with international opinions of people from the US.  Many of the supporters of this new term indicated it was perfectly clear to them, so obviously must be clear to everyone.  It was one of the oddest conversations I've had on the Internet.
> 
Perhaps people like using sex based terms for things because everyone 
can understand the metaphor and a lot of us think about it a lot.

In the 60s it looked as if we might all get a bit more relaxed about 
stuff - but now we seem to be going backwards.

For what it's worth I use Controller and Device rather than Master and 
Slave - it won't work - in the UK several terms for people with brain 
function problems have been tried - but they typically take no more than 
a year or two of common use to become derogatory.

I wonder if people who sign have the same problem ......

MK

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30221

On Thursday, December 17, 2020 at 2:30:19 AM UTC-5, Michael Kellett wrote:
> On 15/12/2020 16:55, Rick C wrote: 
> > Here is another example. What do you think of using the term "carnal knowledge" to refer to knowledge of the inner workings of a function? 
> > 
> > This was a real discussion in a language forum. People were tossing the term around and I didn't know what they meant by it. I looked it up and found it's actually a term from mostly legal usage and fairly archaic. I have a relatively large vocabulary and the group is international, so I figured I would not be the only person needing to look it up. Since the only definition of carnal knowledge is to have intercourse with someone as in a trial, "Did you have carnal knowledge of the victim?" 
> > 
> > That just sounded strange to me. We give new meanings to words often, typically a closely related term that is given a particular shade of meaning in a technical context. I could not figure how anyone would think a euphemism for the sex act would be an appropriate term to requisition for use in discussing technical issues. 
> > 
> > I was accused of being a prude and seemingly in line with international opinions of people from the US. Many of the supporters of this new term indicated it was perfectly clear to them, so obviously must be clear to everyone. It was one of the oddest conversations I've had on the Internet. 
> >
> Perhaps people like using sex based terms for things because everyone 
> can understand the metaphor and a lot of us think about it a lot. 

That was my objection to the use of the term "carnal knowledge".  If someone not knowing the language looked it up and found it is a euphemism for having sex, what would they think it was being used for, having sex with your computer?  At least the term "promiscuous" has a dictionary meaning that is similar to the technical usage.   


> In the 60s it looked as if we might all get a bit more relaxed about 
> stuff - but now we seem to be going backwards. 

Not sure why you consider the issue to be a matter of going backwards.  Being sensitive to people's feelings is not a bad thing.  


> For what it's worth I use Controller and Device rather than Master and 
> Slave - it won't work - in the UK several terms for people with brain 
> function problems have been tried - but they typically take no more than 
> a year or two of common use to become derogatory. 

I think USB uses Host and Device which are good terms, clear enough and without connotations. 


> I wonder if people who sign have the same problem ...... 

Check out ASL for bullshit.  Very graphic. 

-- 

Rick C.

-+ Get 1,000 miles of free Supercharging
-+ Tesla referral code - https://ts.la/richard11209

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30225

Brad Eckert <hwfwguy@gmail.com> wrote:
> It seems the terms *master* and *slave* are being phased out of the tech
> lexicon with help from Google. I know this is like herding cats, but I
> have a proposal for a terminology change.
> 
> Just replace *master* and *slave* with *Alice* and *Bob* respectively.
> *Bob* attaches to *Alice* and then *Alice* tells *Bob* what to do, so
> it's easy to remember. Isn't that more fun than *master* and *slave*?
> 
> In SPI terminology, *mosi* and *miso* become *aobi* and *aibo*. If you
> have multiple Bobs on the bus, it gets better. Alice has a meeting with the Bobs.
> 

Master - Apprentice
Works where the master can be replaced on failure, which is true with many
modern distributed software systems.

Just google synonyms for these words recursively.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#30227

Am 19.12.2020 um 03:03 schrieb Brett:

> Master - Apprentice

Doesn't work.  "Apprentice" is not just any member of the master's work 
force; it's a career step towards becoming a master in one's own right. 
That doesn't fit a SPI or I2C device at all.  The correct term from that 
field would be "hand."

And that's before we consider that due to its relation to the past of 
the outgoing POTUS, the word "Apprentice" is just too close to being 
non-PC to bet a concerted world-wide data-sheet audit-and-rewrite on.

The core problem, though, is that however large the bubble of available 
synonyms is, excessive application of PC rules will eventually drain it 
completely.  Eventually you'll be unable to talk about anything, because 
any word actually meaning anything close to what you're trying to say 
will have been found offensive by someone, somewhere, at some point in 
time.  The idea of PC has a risk of being abused as a DDOS attack 
against the system of "language".

> Works where the master can be replaced on failure, which is true with many
> modern distributed software systems.

In which case it was never truly a master-slave system in the first place.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.arch.embedded

csiph-web