SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Linus Torvalds approved on Friday a new and more inclusive terminology for the Linux kernel code and documentation.
Going forward, Linux developers have been asked to use new terms for the master/slave and blacklist/whitelist terminologies.
The Linux team did not recommend any specific terms but asked developers to choose as appropriate.
The new terms are to be used for new source code written for the Linux kernel and its associated documentation.
The older terms, considered inadequate now, will only be allowed for maintaining older code and documentation, or "when updating code for an existing (as of 2020) hardware or protocol specification that mandates those terms."
Also At:
Linux kernel will no longer use terms 'blacklist' and 'slave'
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Linux Team Approves New Terminology, Bans Terms Like 'Blacklist' and 'Slave'
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 178 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
It's raisins that make Post Raisin Bran so raisiny ...
(Score: 1, Insightful) by PaperNoodle on Wednesday July 15 2020, @03:10AM (8 children)
> anyone in your family tree over the past few thousand years that may have owned slaves at some point.
An assumption. "May not" is as accurate as "may"
>At least one of them is guaranteed to have owned slaves at some point.
An Assumption. Guaranteed from envelop math is not evidence.
>we are all descended from slave owners at some point in our family tree
An Assumption. Do not use averages to describe individual characteristics and behavior.
>Does that make us all bad people?
All I can gather from this conversation and the topic "new terminology banning terms like master and lave" is, yes. Any genealogy judged by modern morality is original sin. It should not matter but then why are words now being changed to accommodate such original sin?
B3
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Wednesday July 15 2020, @03:32AM (5 children)
Some how this sounds like the Bene Gesserit discussing ancestral memories.
Yeah, everyone has ancestors who did abominable things. Accept it. This doesn't mean *you* need to do abominable things.
As for renaming master-slave, blacklist, etc. Well, ok. If it makes some people uncomfortable, then it's the proper thing to do. But be *very* careful that you explicitly define what the new names mean, and pick terms that won't lead to future confusion. Some of those terms really need to be replaced anyway, because their definitions were quite sloppy, either originally, or became so through usage. Which end of a USB cable is the master? If the printer sends a signal over the cable to a computer telling it to initiate file reception is it the same as if the computer sens a signal to the printer telling it to get ready to print incoming data?
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Wednesday July 15 2020, @03:49AM (4 children)
>everyone has ancestors who did abominable things. Accept it. This doesn't mean *you* need to do abominable things.
Does that negate reparations? Can I call on you to pay for reparations? You admit to original sin. I ask for baptism via money to me. You are white, yes? You are wealthy, yes? You have high percentage of ancestors owning slaves, yes? I hear abominable things from you.
>If it makes some people uncomfortable, then it's the proper thing to do.
The squeaky wheel gets the grease. Can you predict which wheel will squeak next? When do you ignore the squeaking? I hear abominable things from you and need monetary compensation to appease my ancestors so that I may not be offended on their behalf.
> their definitions were quite sloppy, either originally, or became so through usage.
In isolation I would probably agree with you. Context is very important.
B3
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @04:24AM (3 children)
No.
No.
I do not.
Good luck with that.
No. I am multicolored.
That depends on your point of view. Based on my income level, I am absolutely not wealthy in this society (or most any other).
Nope. My ancestors were poor Eastern Europeans who have been discriminated against, harassed, murdered and abused for centuries.
(Score: 2, Informative) by HiThere on Wednesday July 15 2020, @02:26PM (2 children)
Correction. Many of your ancestors. Most of them, however, occurred before Europe even had a name.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 15 2020, @08:07PM (1 child)
I amend my previous statement to be:
Asshole.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Thursday July 16 2020, @04:29AM
Some of your ancestors were prosimians. They didn't always act politely.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday July 16 2020, @06:03AM (1 child)
That may be true, but is not a refutation of the argument posed. It's classic whattaboutism. You can't prove the absense of a property within members of a set by finding an individual without that property. To refute a claim "there exists an X with property P" you need to put forward an argument that "all X do not have property P". All you've done is claim "there exists an X without property P".
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by PaperNoodle on Thursday July 16 2020, @02:08PM
No whattaboutism. I didn't bring up any accusation to deflect the topic. I quoted the position and rebutted. I can be wrong or have faulty logic. That's not whattaboutism. Your comment demonstrates as much by arguing the logic or lack there of.
A statement made with "may" which does not change its meaning with "may not" is a weak position and built on underlying assumptions. We may find the answer to fusion in 15 years. We may solve X. We may not solve X. Something is required to solve X that is assumed can happen in the way that supports my position as demonstrated by this math on my napkin. I assume that is enough evidence to solve X.
I proved as much as GP proved. I did so with less assumptions. I do not need to prove anything until there is something to actually prove or counter prove.
B3