Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > linux.debian.user > #267682 > unrolled thread
| Started by | Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100 |
| Last post | 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 78 — 24 participants |
Back to article view | Back to linux.debian.user
Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-22 11:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 07:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 10:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 11:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-23 11:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-23 19:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-14 19:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 01:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-03-15 09:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mike Castle <dalgoda+debian@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 17:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-03-15 17:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 17:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Will Mengarini <seldon@eskimo.com> - 2024-03-15 19:20 +0100
Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Bret Busby <bret@busby.net> - 2024-03-15 20:00 +0100
Re: Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-03-15 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-15 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> - 2024-02-23 12:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 13:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 13:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> - 2024-02-25 00:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> - 2024-02-23 11:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 17:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> - 2024-02-23 19:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Gremlin <scott-andrews@columbus.rr.com> - 2024-02-23 19:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 21:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-23 20:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 12:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP jeremy ardley <jeremy.ardley@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 12:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-02-24 14:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP The Wanderer <wanderer@fastmail.fm> - 2024-02-24 15:10 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-24 18:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-24 19:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 07:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP tomas@tuxteam.de - 2024-02-25 10:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 10:40 +0100
Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] <tomas@tuxteam.de> - 2024-02-25 10:50 +0100
Re: Reply to list vs. group reply [was: Inlclusive terminology...] Geert Stappers <stappers@stappers.nl> - 2024-02-25 13:20 +0100
Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 22:40 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 01:50 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:10 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Alain D D Williams <addw@phcomp.co.uk> - 2024-02-25 12:30 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 13:00 +0100
Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP) Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeovanis@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 02:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> - 2024-03-14 18:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-24 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> - 2024-02-25 00:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-25 00:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-25 12:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP fxkl47BF@protonmail.com - 2024-02-23 16:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 21:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:50 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-23 22:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 03:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 04:00 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> - 2024-02-24 23:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> - 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> - 2024-02-23 18:20 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at> - 2024-02-23 21:30 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Charles Curley <charlescurley@charlescurley.com> - 2024-02-23 22:40 +0100
Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> - 2024-02-23 20:40 +0100
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
| From | Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-03-15 21:50 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IimF3-gWn2-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #268303 |
Will Mengarini wrote: >> With no intention of ever creating a 100% offensive-free >> language, removing the worst offenders from the scene often >> is enough. > > Words I find offensive include "authority" and "manager", so > checking `apropos authori manager` I see we have a lot of > important work to do. You have a lot to do. If you consider those words the worst offenders. And intend to do something about it. > Seriously, you humans have only another five billion Earth > years until your sun engulfs your home planet, and you're > spending time on *THIS*?! Relax, people also build shelves and get dead drunk at their brothers' weddings. -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaCdX-c4b5-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267701 |
On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: > On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote: >> Hello! >> >> I know this is a loaded topic... ... > There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good > activism Statement one above proven. ... > All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have > to fix If there's a single person in the world who feels existing terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms. If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good. If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong ones. As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude. Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably also a loaded topic. Cheers, Arno -- Arno Lehmann IT-Service Lehmann Sandstr. 6, 49080 Osnabrück
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 13:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaCGZ-c4AT-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267712 |
Am 23.02.2024 schrieb Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de>: > If there's a single person in the world who feels existing > terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms. Everytime there is somebody who doesn't like something. I mostly care about technology and not the feelings a small amount of users has. It is free software - everybody can create a fork and change the stuff. > If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good. I simply don't care about those feelings. > If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments > such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong > ones. The amount of work needed to change it is of course a really strong argument because there need to be people who are willing to change it and spend their time on it. The technical gain of that is exactly zero, it doesn't solve any bug, it doesn't add a feature, it doesn't make it easier to use, it simply makes some tiny amount of users feel better. > As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude. Feel free to do so. I like the freedom in free software, so everybody can create software without "problematic" terms. > Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably > also a loaded topic. It cannot be completely separated because there is a language that is being used and that language is part of a political discussion. Although, it doesn't mean that a developers needs to change something.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 13:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaD0l-c4GS-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267712 |
Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 12:40:19 Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> napisał(a): > On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: > > On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote: > >> Hello! > >> > >> I know this is a loaded topic... > ... > > There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good > > activism > > Statement one above proven. > > ... > > All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the > > have to fix > > If there's a single person in the world who feels existing > terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms. So you do nothing all day or ? Because there is always someone that will find something a problem. > If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good. That's HORRID argument. You can do massive variety of unexcusably bad things with that excuse. "But that person was happy for it" > If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments > such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong > ones. > And that 0.001% that isn't even affected by term want it changed is argument to you why ? > As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude. > How about "unable to discuss actual topic but throwing useless generalizations in every sentence"? Is that woke or rude ? -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 23:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ib8GS-coOt-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267712 |
On 2/23/24, Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> wrote: > On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: >> On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote: >>> Hello! >>> >>> I know this is a loaded topic... > ... >> There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good >> activism > > Statement one above proven. Missing the wood for the trees. Acknowledging that part of your interlocutor's statement which does have substance, is a more useful foundation for actual communication. Your response to Ralph might be witty, but it is without empathy. >> All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have >> to fix > > If there's a single person in the world who feels existing terminology > to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms. You are free to do all such consideration you feel appropriate. You have failed to name the objection, which afaict is the asking of "tens of thousands" of people in our community to spend their precious Soul attention on the real psychological and emotional needs of a handful of damaged individuals in genuine need of healing. > If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good. Your good intentions are applauded. The road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least when you put your imposition on others to "you must act with the good intentions which I do". > If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments > such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong ones. If someone is genuinely in need of healing, then the Debian mailing lists is not an appropriate place for professional help. If someone is not in need of professional help and genuine healing, the demand that the community put the attention of thousands (or in fact 10s of thousands or more) on the delicate emotions of a tiny number of vocal individuals, is an abhorrent demand, virtually be definition. > As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude. It is good that you have personally found a way to feel good about your activism. You are applauded, certainly by those who are aware of the benefit you may have brought to their delicate and fragile emotions. And I say that with no sarcasm at all. It is good that people in this world care about one another. I have no objection that whatsoever, and in fact when one is lifted a little, I hold that this lifting has a subtle benefit for us all. > Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably also > a loaded topic. Every loaded topic, can be unloaded. Unloading a loaded topic simply requires sufficient linguistic capacity. Keep at your efforts and you should find success in this regard. I consider such pursuit a useful endeavor.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Karen Lewellen <klewellen@shellworld.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 00:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ib9tg-cprP-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267794 |
May I interject a different perspective? what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, that some see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful? Or teaching those people how to free themselves from being controlled by those words? Yes, your goals may be honorable to be sure, but in the end do not the words still win if the control remains? Just a thought, Karen On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Zenaan Harkness wrote: > On 2/23/24, Arno Lehmann <al@its-lehmann.de> wrote: >> On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: >>> On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote: >>>> Hello! >>>> >>>> I know this is a loaded topic... >> ... >>> There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good >>> activism >> >> Statement one above proven. > > Missing the wood for the trees. > > Acknowledging that part of your interlocutor's statement which does > have substance, is a more useful foundation for actual communication. > Your response to Ralph might be witty, but it is without empathy. > >>> All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have >>> to fix >> >> If there's a single person in the world who feels existing terminology >> to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms. > > You are free to do all such consideration you feel appropriate. You > have failed to name the objection, which afaict is the asking of "tens > of thousands" of people in our community to spend their precious Soul > attention on the real psychological and emotional needs of a handful > of damaged individuals in genuine need of healing. > >> If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good. > > Your good intentions are applauded. > > The road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least when you put > your imposition on others to "you must act with the good intentions > which I do". > >> If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments >> such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong ones. > > If someone is genuinely in need of healing, then the Debian mailing > lists is not an appropriate place for professional help. > > If someone is not in need of professional help and genuine healing, > the demand that the community put the attention of thousands (or in > fact 10s of thousands or more) on the delicate emotions of a tiny > number of vocal individuals, is an abhorrent demand, virtually be > definition. > >> As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude. > > It is good that you have personally found a way to feel good about > your activism. You are applauded, certainly by those who are aware of > the benefit you may have brought to their delicate and fragile > emotions. > > And I say that with no sarcasm at all. It is good that people in this > world care about one another. I have no objection that whatsoever, and > in fact when one is lifted a little, I hold that this lifting has a > subtle benefit for us all. > >> Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably also >> a loaded topic. > > Every loaded topic, can be unloaded. Unloading a loaded topic simply > requires sufficient linguistic capacity. Keep at your efforts and you > should find success in this regard. I consider such pursuit a useful > endeavor. > >
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | <tomas@tuxteam.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 07:30 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Ibgbn-ctBC-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267798 |
[Multipart message — attachments visible in raw view] — view raw
On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:05:26PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote: > May I interject a different perspective? > what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, that some > see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful? Or teaching those > people how to free themselves from being controlled by those words? Not using the words doesn't remove the injustice. I'm not that naïve. It's just a question of politeness. As an example: I left the Christian religion long time ago. If I visit a church (to admire its architecture, for example), I behave with a modicum of respect and restrain myself of farting aloud. If I visit a mosque (I'm not a Muslim) I take off my shoes. Because I know there are people in there who might well be offended by some behaviour. It's that easy. > Yes, your goals may be honorable to be sure, but in the end do not the words > still win if the control remains? Removing the injustice is a much longer process, and it's important to put a lot of work in it. The above is just a friendly acknowledgement "yes, I see you". Just politeness. Not more. After all, I try to be polite to you too (I might fail at that, dunno). Cheers -- t
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Zenaan Harkness <zenaan@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 08:40 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <Ibhh7-cucc-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267813 |
On 2/25/24, tomas@tuxteam.de <tomas@tuxteam.de> wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:05:26PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> May I interject a different perspective?
>> what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, that
>> some
>> see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful? Or teaching
>> those
>> people how to free themselves from being controlled by those words?
>
> Not using the words doesn't remove the injustice.
Words do not create injustice. You are mistaken.
Broken and damaged individuals perceive injustice.
> I'm not that naïve. It's just a question of politeness.
Actually I wish you were not so naive as to actually believe the
dichomatic trollop you are holding to.
> As an example: I left the Christian religion long time ago. If I visit a
> church (to admire its architecture, for example), I behave with a modicum
> of respect and restrain myself of farting aloud. If I visit a mosque (I'm
> not a Muslim) I take off my shoes.
>
> Because I know there are people in there who might well be offended by some
> behaviour.
>
> It's that easy.
No it's not that easy. What you say here ("It's that easy") is simply not true.
Only in very limited and strictly controlled environments can you get
away with such superficiality. The West placades docility of mind.
This does not mean that a docile mind is worthy of any esteem.
>> Yes, your goals may be honorable to be sure, but in the end do not the
>> words
>> still win if the control remains?
>
> Removing the injustice is a much longer process, and it's important to
> put a lot of work in it. The above is just a friendly acknowledgement
> "yes, I see you". Just politeness. Not more.
No, you missed their point. Either intentionally (in which case you
would rightly be held as manipulative) or unintentionally (in which
case you could rightly be held as docile of mind).
> After all, I try to be polite to you too (I might fail at that, dunno).
"Look, at least I tried to be polite, so please ignore the fact I've
ignored what you said and allow my unspoken assumptions to prevail"
It is really, really dull at this stage.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-25 12:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <Iblb3-cwtk-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267813 |
Dnia 2024-02-25, o godz. 07:29:32 <tomas@tuxteam.de> napisał(a): > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:05:26PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote: > > May I interject a different perspective? > > what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, > > that some see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful? > > Or teaching those people how to free themselves from being > > controlled by those words? > > Not using the words doesn't remove the injustice. I'm not that naïve. > It's just a question of politeness. > > As an example: I left the Christian religion long time ago. If I > visit a church (to admire its architecture, for example), I behave > with a modicum of respect and restrain myself of farting aloud. If I > visit a mosque (I'm not a Muslim) I take off my shoes. Great point! I do that too, nor would I flaunt my (non)-religious beliefs to religious people without being asked. Now did you know that by you not being a Muslim your entire existence offends that religion ? So, will you remove or convert yourself, or will you deem that demand to be unreasonable ? I'm gonna assume the latter. So would you acquiesce that shunning certain words (nigger,faggot etc.) that are used 99% as an insults is reasonable, while leaving ones that have multiple uses (master, slave, git, gimp) and not being used in modern speech as insults untouched is a reasonable approach ? -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 15:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaF2a-c5SB-27@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267701 |
Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: > It would *literally* break every single script that checks the status > of bonding config in system, as it is all just plain text. Unless a different driver was made instead. Which is what actually happened. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 11:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaAFb-c3pB-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267682 |
Am 22.02.2024 schrieb Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at>: > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the > political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e. > how far this has been progressed in Debian. Debian is mostly a collection of many packages that are packed in the repo. Such changes are normally done upstream. > Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of > network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides > this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just > wondering. > > https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding I don't know why somebody should waste time for changing terms there. There is almost no technical benefit and the amount of people who operate Ethernet bonds is small, so the probability that somebody feels disturbed by those terms here is also small. Most people don't care about master/slave either, they simply use that and don't let the wokes spoil the party. If you like to change that, feel free to create a fork of the upstream projects and use the terms you prefer. I don't think that spending time on that is a valuable thing, there are more important tasks like testing or adding functionality. The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail. They decided to use blocklist_recipients instead of backlist_recipients, but blacklist still works.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 11:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaBhT-c3Cb-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267705 |
On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote: > The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail. With the publication of RFC 9271 "UPS Management Protocol", the nut packages (Network UPS Tools) did a vocabulary cleanup at release 2.8.0 which included changing Master/Slave to Primary/Secondary. There have been no reports in the mailing list of this causing any problems. Roger
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 12:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaBKV-c41l-9@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267709 |
Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 11:25:25 Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> napisał(a): > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote: > > > The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail. > > > > With the publication of RFC 9271 "UPS Management Protocol", the nut > packages (Network UPS Tools) did a vocabulary cleanup at release > 2.8.0 which included changing Master/Slave to Primary/Secondary. > There have been no reports in the mailing list of this causing any > problems. > > Roger > Because nut have backward-compatible name support. Can't do that if you change literal text returned by kernel about device config. That is why it "works" (for us too, we use it). Bringing unrelated project to the discussion is, well, unrelated as problems are of entirely different kind, making config backward-compatible is far easier than what it returns (and nothing realistically would check for the word anyway in case of UPS) Did you looked up what actually changed and thought about implications vs changing kernel interfaces or did you just google for random tidbit of which project did waste time on that ? -- Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) <xani666@gmail.com> GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64 https://devrandom.eu
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Andy Smith <andy@strugglers.net> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 15:40 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaESt-c5OM-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267711 |
Hi, On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:14:10PM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote: > Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 11:25:25 > Roger Price <roger@rogerprice.org> napisał(a): > > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote: > > > The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail. > > > > > > > With the publication of RFC 9271 "UPS Management Protocol", the nut > > packages (Network UPS Tools) did a vocabulary cleanup […] > Did you looked up what actually changed and thought about implications > vs changing kernel interfaces or did you just google for random tidbit > of which project did waste time on that ? Roger is responding to a statement of there being no other, with the info that there is at least one other. Thanks, Andy -- https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 17:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IaGAV-c6Wb-11@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267705 |
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 5:08 AM Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> wrote: > Am 22.02.2024 schrieb Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at>: > [...] > > Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of > > network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides > > this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just > > wondering. > > > > https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding > > I don't know why somebody should waste time for changing terms there. > There is almost no technical benefit and the amount of people who > operate Ethernet bonds is small, so the probability that somebody feels > disturbed by those terms here is also small. > [...] > I don't think that spending time on that is a valuable thing, there are > more important tasks like testing or adding functionality. I align with most of this position. An engineer's time is better spent on technical problems, not political ones. There is no technical benefit, so don't spend time on it. And there are other venues for political discourse. > If you like to change that, feel free to create a fork of the upstream > projects and use the terms you prefer. I hope no one would object if OP created a politically correct ifenslave-pc package. I don't want to bikeshed, though. Slavery ended in the US about 150 years ago. I don't know any slaves, and I don't own any slaves, so I don't really have a dog in the fight. Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Dan Ritter <dsr@randomstring.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 19:10 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaI9H-c7Zz-7@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267737 |
Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > I don't want to bikeshed, though. Slavery ended in the US about 150 > years ago. I don't know any slaves, and I don't own any slaves, so I > don't really have a dog in the fight. Point of fact: slavery is legal in the USA, as a legal punishment. Other point of fact: the effects of slavery in the USA continue to be felt in the present. At this point we have diverged completely from Debian topics. Let's bring it back around to actual action. The possible positions: 1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it. 2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself. 3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants to fix it. 4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it. People taking positions one through three are people that I can work with. -dsr-
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Gremlin <scott-andrews@columbus.rr.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 19:20 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaIjn-c82I-1@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267742 |
On 2/23/24 12:51, Dan Ritter wrote: > Jeffrey Walton wrote: [ >/dev/null ] > > Let's bring it back around to actual action. > > The possible positions: > > 1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it. > > 2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself. > > 3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants to fix it. > > 4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it. > > > People taking positions one through three are people that I can > work with. > > -dsr- > > 5. The terminology is good and we should fix it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Jeffrey Walton <noloader@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 21:00 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IaJSa-c8Rj-21@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267743 |
On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 1:13 PM Gremlin <scott-andrews@columbus.rr.com> wrote: > > On 2/23/24 12:51, Dan Ritter wrote: > > Jeffrey Walton wrote: > > [ >/dev/null ] > > > > > Let's bring it back around to actual action. > > > > The possible positions: > > > > 1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it. > > > > 2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself. > > > > 3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants to fix it. > > > > 4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it. > > > > People taking positions one through three are people that I can > > work with. > > 5. The terminology is good and we should fix it. If you wish to see how this is going to play out, then visit <https://github.com/joyent/libuv/pull/1015>. That's the Ben Noordhuis and Node.js pronoun scandal from 2014. Jeff
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-23 20:00 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <IaIW5-c8fZ-5@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267742 |
Am 23.02.2024 um 12:51:59 Uhr schrieb Dan Ritter: > 1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it. > > 2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself. > > 3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone > else wants to fix it. > > 4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it. 5. The terminology is completely different, because machines are involved and not people. Many languages have words that are used in many ways for completely different things. Just check what different meanings GIMP has. Maybe some more people now feel uncomfortable with using it. https://www.dict.cc/?s=gimp -- Gruß Marco Spam und Werbung bitte an ichschickereklame@cartoonies.org
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Emanuel Berg <incal@dataswamp.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2024-02-24 12:30 +0100 |
| Subject | Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP |
| Message-ID | <IaYo9-ciou-3@gated-at.bofh.it> |
| In reply to | #267745 |
Marco Moock wrote: > Just check what different meanings GIMP has. Maybe some more > people now feel uncomfortable with using it. > https://www.dict.cc/?s=gimp Yes, people have been saying that for quite some time: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20359520] https://www.theregister.com/2019/08/28/gimp_open_source_image_editor_forked_to_fix_problematic_name/ Personally, I don't really care, at least not in the master/slave and GIMP cases. Blacklist perhaps could and should be changed to blocklist. But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block market" work just fine? -- underground experts united https://dataswamp.org/~incal
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | linux.debian.user
csiph-web