this post was submitted on 20 Aug 2024

618 points (88.8% liked)

Showerthoughts

29172 readers

201 users here now

A "Showerthought" is a simple term used to describe the thoughts that pop into your head while you're doing everyday things like taking a shower, driving, or just daydreaming. The best ones are thoughts that many people can relate to and they find something funny or interesting in regular stuff.

Rules

All posts must be showerthoughts
The entire showerthought must be in the title
Posts must be original/unique
Be good to others - no bigotry - including racism, sexism, ableism, homophobia, transphobia, or xenophobia
Adhere to Lemmy's Code of Conduct

founded 1 year ago

MODERATORS

[email protected]

618

If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"? (lemmy.dbzer0.com)

submitted 3 weeks ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

454 comments fedilink hide all child comments

It sounds way less offensive to those who decry the original terminology's problematic roots but still keeps its meaning intact.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 127 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (48 children)

No it doesn't sound bad, words don't need to be thrown away forever just because they've been used to describe unfair treatment. I'm so sick of having to relabel so many things that are so far divorced from the social issues they are used to describe. It's so pointless and has no impact, the code doesn't care which is master and which is the slave for they are simply descriptive labels.

Are we supposed to never use the words master or slave ever again?? What's next?

My dev friends, no matter their race, all say the exact same thing. We still use master over main, come at us I guess.

[+] [email protected] -7 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (17 children)

unfair treatment.

We're talking about slavery here.

sick of having to relabel

It's not that hard....to be accommodating.

divorced from the social issues

from your point of view

the code doesn't care

You're right. Call it a controller and agent. I know naming is hard, but we're smart enough to apply our lexicon.

never use the words master or slave ever again? What's next??

Ah, the slippery slope fallacy.

We still use master over main

The default for new repositories on GitHub has been main for awhile now. You would have had to put in effort to change it to something else. You're a stick in the mud.

[–] [email protected] 13 points 3 weeks ago (12 children)

The default for git repositories is still master. Not to be the "real programmers only use CLI" guy, but I feel like git init isn't too hipster.

[–] [email protected] -3 points 3 weeks ago (2 children)

The default has been main for awhile.

This is the case in our current version of git (git version 2.28. 0). As of October 1, 2020, any new repository you create on GitHub.com will use main as the default branch.

March 2021 for gitlab

[–] [email protected] 10 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Still the default in git.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

...but recommended to be changed every. single. time. you git init. https://lemmy.world/comment/11895670

[–] [email protected] 2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

can you point where ANYTHING is recommended at all there?

Cause it simply says that you can change the name. But "master" is the default. That doesn't sound like a "recommendation" at all. But just making people aware since some repositories try to force things like "Main". Almost like the repo you're using might be enforcing shit that Git in of itself doesn't give a shit about.

[–] [email protected] -1 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

which will suppress this warning

"I'm going to be annoying you until you do something about it" It is recommending that you take some sort of action, that choice is up to you as the user. In fact, the older way of disabling the warning was called advice.defaultBranchName

AFAIK git is still Linus Trovalds' project and one thing he is known for is "you dont fuckin break user space". That is acknowledged in the pull request https://github.com/git/git/pull/921

"will minimize disruption for Git's users and will include appropriate deprecation periods".

Linus is also a fuck-your-feelings kind of guy so deprecation_period == linus_date_of_death. No, I'm not implying Linus is racist/bigot, just that he feels that strongly about breaking user experience.

Git in of itself doesn’t give a shit about.

You're right...and that's why its unbelievable to me how some people are still (it has been nearly 4 years since that PR above) resistant to change this one little thing. This is just the initial branch that we're talking about here. Git doesn't care if you:

﬌ git init
Initialized empty Git repository in /home/xxxxxx/tmp/.git/

﬌ touch foo && git add foo && git commit -am "foo"
[main (root-commit) 9c74dd1] foo
 1 file changed, 0 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
 create mode 100644 foo

﬌ git branch -a            
* main

﬌ git checkout -b bar
Switched to a new branch 'bar'

﬌ git branch -d main
Deleted branch main (was 9c74dd1).

﬌ git branch -a
* bar

﬌ git log      
commit 9c74dd18d493fec727e6ce9e4ba71ed356dd970d (HEAD -> bar)
Author: Butters
Date:   Thu Aug 22 00:14:44 2024 -0400

    foo

[–] [email protected] 1 points 3 weeks ago

“I’m going to be annoying you until you do something about it”

You call that annoying? Annoying would be not functioning at all unless you choose an choice... or even worse. Go the Github route and specifically force you to use anything other than master.

Git doesn’t care if you:

Right... So why are you attributing Github = Git... When It's clear that's not the case.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

Github != git.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 3 weeks ago (1 children)

No shit? Let me guess; you're still using git like Linus intended it to be, decentralized, by emailing each other tar.gz's

[–] [email protected] 3 points 3 weeks ago* (last edited 3 weeks ago) (1 children)

No. I'm just not willing to attribute a COMPANY as the sole owner/stakeholder in a protocol that honestly has very little to do with them.

Just because Github does something, doesn't mean that they represent git.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 3 weeks ago

I just used the most popular/known example. Personally I haven't liked GitHub since Micro$oft bought them. I'm ol' school, 25 years in the biz so M$ really really leaves a bad aftertaste in my mouth.

I'll answer your other question in the other thread.

load more comments (9 replies)

load more comments (13 replies)

load more comments (43 replies)