BIND Masters and slaves

[Parkin, Richard (R.)]

I just got into a disagreement with a couple of people on this.  I’m sure this won’t be much different.

My feeling is that we’re dealing with software and things here and not people.  A Master is simply an authoritative source in this context.  It has nothing to do with enslaving human beings.

Abolishing words that mean something doesn’t erase the ugly, evil nature of racism and other societal ills.  Did no one in this generation read and understand ‘1984’?  Or did they think it was a good “How-To” manual?

Changing these is a nearly meaningless symbolic gesture that makes it look like something happened when nothing really changed in the social context.  The irony is that a different kind of domination won out.  And what is the economic cost of making these kinds of changes?  Does that time and money go toward any real change, or is it just lost?

Are we going to have to stop using the word “Server” next?  Because that kind of thought policing offends *me*.  This way lies madness.  The continual caving in to political correctness just encourages people to keep doing it.

That said, I’ve long interchangeably used Master and Primary, Slave and Secondary.  They’re still descriptive of the process that didn’t change.  I’m okay with that.  What I’m not okay with are non-backward compatible syntax changes in the configuration files just for the sake of appearances.  That affects all of us in a very non-positive way.  If BIND syntax can reliably use both forms interchangeably for the next 5-10 years and allow a gradual change, fine.

Rich Parkin
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.isc.org/pipermail/bind-users/attachments/20200615/6ae7fd5e/attachment-0001.htm>