If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"?
If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"?
It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology's problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.
You're viewing a single thread.
Primary/secondary?
That doesn't make sense depending on the context. New I2C standard switched to controller/target for example. This conveys that one device is controlling the other devices.
My suggestion doesn't make sense in the classic PATA sense either, since there were potentially several "slave" devices, but they weren't slaves so much as dependent on the "master."
Parent/child(ren)(s)
i saw main/clone for storage once
I have my primary, and my secondary, and my secondary secondary.
Leader/follower works though.