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.
Comment on If "Master/Slave" terminology in computing sounds bad now, why not change it to "Dom/Sub"?
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 4 weeks agoNot just that, it’s bad and makes no sense in its technical context.
Server client is far better.
KillingTimeItself@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 weeks ago
lud@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
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.
Linkerbaan@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
You are correct I swapped client with other such as worker, child, and helper,
In 2018, after a heated debate, developers of Python replaced the term.[4] Python switched to main, parent, and server; and worker, child, and helper, depending on context.[4][23] The Linux kernel adopted a similar policy to use more specific terms in new code and documentation.[17][24]
The 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.
lud@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
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.
nemno@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Nowadays its more ofte used for server hierarchies/functionality. Or well, a lot of software is changing now. Mariadb use Source and replica.