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.
Not just that, it’s bad and makes no sense in its technical context.
Server client is far better.
No, that’s completely dependent on what you are referring too. I have never heard anyone ever referring to a server as “master” or a client as a “slave”. The slave/master terminology is often used for storage. I.E. Master drive and slave drive.
Nowadays its more ofte used for server hierarchies/functionality. Or well, a lot of software is changing now. Mariadb use Source and replica.
You are correct I swapped client with other such as worker, child, and helper,
My problem with the term “slave” is that it does not indicate there is a delegation of work going, on but rather that the subdevice is somehow fully “owned” by the master device. Whereas in reality the master is more like a manager telling a worker what to do.
In some cases the sub device is pretty much owned by the “master” device.
I’m mostly thinking of IDE since that’s the only place I ever hear anyone use master/slave except GIT where master is used.
that’s because the server is rarely the master, the clients do work, and the server just exchanges the work of the clients, it’s a lot more akin to a telephone exchange as opposed to a master/slave architecture.