The request of words matter updated

zsh-workers
 help / color / mirror / code / Atom feed

* The request of words matter updated
@ 2022-09-19  6:52 Xiao Ling XL Chen
  2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Xiao Ling XL Chen @ 2022-09-19  6:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 874 bytes --]

There 12 slave and 16 master used as variables in source code   "Src/Modules/zpty.c". Even though the words "slave" & "master" are used as internal static variables, and not be exposed to external calling or exported it in message, as what the words matter requirement, may I ask change them in a future level? For example, replace “slave” with "worker", "child", "helper", "replica", "follower", or "secondary [server, node, process, or other noun]", and replace “master” with "controller", "leader", "manager", "main", "coordinator", "parent", or "primary [server, node, process, or other noun]". Thanks.

Take care, stay strong, and stay safe.

Best regards,
Sunny (Xiao Ling Chen, 陈小玲)

z/OS USS SU&DBX Development and L3
IBM China Systems & Technology Lab (CSTL)
Tel:    86-010-82452454
E-mail: chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com<mailto:chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com>
--

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4093 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-19  6:52 The request of words matter updated Xiao Ling XL Chen
@ 2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-09-27  3:15   ` Lawrence Velázquez
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-19 18:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 11:58 PM Xiao Ling XL Chen <chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
>
> ... as what the words matter requirement, may I ask change them in a future level?

I support this effort in general, but at the present time the Linux
documentation for pty(7), openpty(3), etc., still use the terms in
question.  (I haven't checked other platforms.)  Should we plan for
this change to track the library terminology?

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-09-27  3:15   ` Lawrence Velázquez
  2022-09-27  4:22     ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-10-01  4:40     ` Lawrence Velázquez
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-09-27  3:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bart Schaefer; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> On Sun, Sep 18, 2022 at 11:58 PM Xiao Ling XL Chen <chenxlxl@cn.ibm.com> wrote:
>>
>> ... as what the words matter requirement, may I ask change them in a future level?
>
> I support this effort in general

+1

> but at the present time the Linux documentation for pty(7),
> openpty(3), etc., still use the terms in question.  (I haven't
> checked other platforms.)

FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD do as well.

Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary" (https://illumos.org/man/4D/pty).

AIX uses "controller" and "worker"
(https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=files-pty-special-file).

> Should we plan for this change to track the library terminology?

Are Linux or the BSDs planning on making similar changes?  If not,
we could be waiting for a very long time.

-- 
vq


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27  3:15   ` Lawrence Velázquez
@ 2022-09-27  4:22     ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-09-27  8:44       ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-10-01  4:40     ` Lawrence Velázquez
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-27  4:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Lawrence Velázquez; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:18 PM Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote:
>
> Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary"
> AIX uses "controller" and "worker"

Well, that's no fun.  It means there's no "term of art" we can adopt.
On the other hand, I guess, it means we don't have to worry about
confusing future programmers, because they'll already be confused.

> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
> > Should we plan for this change to track the library terminology?
>
> Are Linux or the BSDs planning on making similar changes?

I'm sure they're at least aware of the general trend toward
eliminating this sort of terminology, I've been seeing it discussed in
other contexts for more than a decade.

In this particular context I'd probably choose something like
superior/inferior ... neither subsidiary nor worker really fits what
that half of the PTY pair is doing, IMO.  They sound like words chosen
for a global search-and-replace over a codebase nobody was willing to
actually read.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27  4:22     ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-09-27  8:44       ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-09-28 20:01         ` Eric Cook
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-09-27  8:44 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang


> On 27/09/2022 05:22 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> 
>  
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:18 PM Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote:
> >
> > Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary"
> > AIX uses "controller" and "worker"
> 
> Well, that's no fun.  It means there's no "term of art" we can adopt.
> On the other hand, I guess, it means we don't have to worry about
> confusing future programmers, because they'll already be confused.

My only comment is that if we pick something unique and do the job
properly this time, then any further update to fit in with standards
is a 30 second automatic replacement.  So I don't think it's worth
agonising over.

> In this particular context I'd probably choose something like
> superior/inferior ... neither subsidiary nor worker really fits what
> that half of the PTY pair is doing, IMO.  They sound like words chosen
> for a global search-and-replace over a codebase nobody was willing to
> actually read.

So e.g. zsuperior and zinferior would give us that ability (but you may
well be right superior and inferior are good enough --- replacing
master and slave didn't hit any clashes).

pws

diff --git a/Src/Modules/zpty.c b/Src/Modules/zpty.c
index dfd2a2a7a..b9e3b4050 100644
--- a/Src/Modules/zpty.c
+++ b/Src/Modules/zpty.c
@@ -188,7 +188,7 @@ getptycmd(char *name)
 #endif
 
 static int
-get_pty(int master, int *retfd)
+get_pty(int zsuperior, int *retfd)
 {
     static char *name;
     static int mfd, sfd;
@@ -196,7 +196,7 @@ get_pty(int master, int *retfd)
     int ret;
 #endif
 
-    if (master) {
+    if (zsuperior) {
 #ifdef HAVE_POSIX_OPENPT
 	if ((mfd = posix_openpt(O_RDWR|O_NOCTTY)) < 0)
 #else
@@ -252,7 +252,7 @@ get_pty(int master, int *retfd)
 #else /* No /dev/ptmx or no pt functions */
 
 static int
-get_pty(int master, int *retfd)
+get_pty(int zsuperior, int *retfd)
 {
 
 #ifdef __linux
@@ -275,7 +275,7 @@ get_pty(int master, int *retfd)
     static int mfd, sfd;
     char *p1, *p2;
 
-    if (master) {
+    if (zsuperior) {
 	strcpy(name, "/dev/ptyxx");
 #if defined(__BEOS__) || defined(__HAIKU__)
 	name[7] = '/';
@@ -310,7 +310,7 @@ static int
 newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 {
     Ptycmd p;
-    int master, slave, pid, oineval = ineval, ret;
+    int zsuperior, zinferior, pid, oineval = ineval, ret;
     char *oscriptname = scriptname, syncch;
     Eprog prog;
 
@@ -327,7 +327,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 	return 1;
     }
 
-    if (get_pty(1, &master)) {
+    if (get_pty(1, &zsuperior)) {
 	zwarnnam(nam, "can't open pseudo terminal: %e", errno);
 	scriptname = oscriptname;
 	ineval = oineval;
@@ -335,7 +335,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
     }
     if ((pid = fork()) == -1) {
 	zwarnnam(nam, "can't create pty command %s: %e", pname, errno);
-	close(master);
+	close(zsuperior);
 	scriptname = oscriptname;
 	ineval = oineval;
 	return 1;
@@ -360,9 +360,9 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 	}
 #endif
 
-	if (get_pty(0, &slave))
+	if (get_pty(0, &zinferior))
 	    exit(1);
-	SHTTY = slave;
+	SHTTY = zinferior;
 	attachtty(mypid);
 #ifdef TIOCGWINSZ
 	/* Set the window size before associating with the terminal *
@@ -370,10 +370,10 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 	if (interact) {
 	    struct ttyinfo info;
 
-	    if (ioctl(slave, TIOCGWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize) == 0) {
+	    if (ioctl(zinferior, TIOCGWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize) == 0) {
 		info.winsize.ws_row = zterm_lines;
 		info.winsize.ws_col = zterm_columns;
-		ioctl(slave, TIOCSWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize);
+		ioctl(zinferior, TIOCSWINSZ, (char *) &info.winsize);
 	    }
 	}
 #endif /* TIOCGWINSZ */
@@ -381,7 +381,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 	if (!echo) {
 	    struct ttyinfo info;
 
-	    if (!ptygettyinfo(slave, &info)) {
+	    if (!ptygettyinfo(zinferior, &info)) {
 #ifdef HAVE_TERMIOS_H
 		info.tio.c_lflag &= ~ECHO;
 #else
@@ -391,25 +391,25 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 		info.tio.lmodes &= ~ECHO; /**** dunno if this is right */
 #endif
 #endif
-		ptysettyinfo(slave, &info);
+		ptysettyinfo(zinferior, &info);
 	    }
 	}
 
 #ifdef TIOCSCTTY
-	ioctl(slave, TIOCSCTTY, 0);
+	ioctl(zinferior, TIOCSCTTY, 0);
 #endif
 
 	close(0);
 	close(1);
 	close(2);
 
-	dup2(slave, 0);
-	dup2(slave, 1);
-	dup2(slave, 2);
+	dup2(zinferior, 0);
+	dup2(zinferior, 1);
+	dup2(zinferior, 2);
 
 	closem(FDT_UNUSED, 0);
-	close(slave);
-	close(master);
+	close(zinferior);
+	close(zsuperior);
 	close(coprocin);
 	close(coprocout);
 	init_io(NULL);
@@ -436,22 +436,22 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 	zexit(lastval, ZEXIT_NORMAL);
     }
 #ifndef USE_CYGWIN_FIX
-    master = movefd(master);
-    if (master == -1) {
-	zerrnam(nam, "cannot duplicate fd %d: %e", master, errno);
+    zsuperior = movefd(zsuperior);
+    if (zsuperior == -1) {
+	zerrnam(nam, "cannot duplicate fd %d: %e", zsuperior, errno);
 	scriptname = oscriptname;
 	ineval = oineval;
 	return 1;
     }
 #else
-    addmodulefd(master, FDT_INTERNAL);
+    addmodulefd(zsuperior, FDT_INTERNAL);
 #endif
 
     p = (Ptycmd) zalloc(sizeof(*p));
 
     p->name = ztrdup(pname);
     p->args = zarrdup(args);
-    p->fd = master;
+    p->fd = zsuperior;
     p->pid = pid;
     p->echo = echo;
     p->nblock = nblock;
@@ -464,13 +464,13 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
     ptycmds = p;
 
     if (nblock)
-	ptynonblock(master);
+	ptynonblock(zsuperior);
 
     scriptname = oscriptname;
     ineval = oineval;
 
     do {
-	ret = read(master, &syncch, 1);
+	ret = read(zsuperior, &syncch, 1);
     } while (ret != 1 && (
 #ifdef EWOULDBLOCK
 	    errno == EWOULDBLOCK ||
@@ -481,7 +481,7 @@ newptycmd(char *nam, char *pname, char **args, int echo, int nblock)
 #endif
 	    errno == EINTR));
 
-    setiparam_no_convert("REPLY", (zlong)master);
+    setiparam_no_convert("REPLY", (zlong)zsuperior);
 
     return 0;
 }


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27  8:44       ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-09-27 21:15           ` Clinton Bunch
                             ` (5 more replies)
  2022-09-28 20:01         ` Eric Cook
  1 sibling, 6 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-09-27 20:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

-1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
change feel comfortable saying so publicly.

I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal parameters
in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is
a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone
Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn.
Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what
downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem
desirable.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-09-27 21:15           ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-27 21:22             ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-28 12:33             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-27 21:32           ` Mikael Magnusson
                             ` (4 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-27 21:15 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 9/27/2022 3:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.
>
> I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal parameters
> in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is
> a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone
> Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn.
> Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what
> downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem
> desirable.
>
We've been trying to rid ourselves of these words for twenty years in 
the IT industry.  They were used because they accurately describe the 
relationship and at the dawn of Unix and the Internet, the emotional 
charge the words carry wasn't recognized.


For PTYs  I like the terms controller and subsidiary.  It seems to 
describe the relationship better than other suggestions.  The use of 
superior and inferior as otherwhere suggested strike me as eventually 
running into the same problem of being emotionally charged.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 21:15           ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-09-27 21:22             ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-28 12:42               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-28 12:33             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-27 21:22 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On 9/27/2022 4:15 PM, Clinton Bunch wrote:
> On 9/27/2022 3:54 PM, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
>> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
>> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.
>>
>> I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal 
>> parameters
>> in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is
>> a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone
>> Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn.
>> Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what
>> downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem
>> desirable.
>>
> We've been trying to rid ourselves of these words for twenty years in 
> the IT industry.  They were used because they accurately describe the 
> relationship and at the dawn of Unix and the Internet, the emotional 
> charge the words carry wasn't recognized.
>
>
> For PTYs  I like the terms controller and subsidiary.  It seems to 
> describe the relationship better than other suggestions.  The use of 
> superior and inferior as otherwhere suggested strike me as eventually 
> running into the same problem of being emotionally charged.
>
I will also point out that making it "Somebody Else's Problem" Is a big 
part of why we haven't successfully rid ourselves of these terms in over 
two decades of realizing they were problematic. Let's not perpetuate the 
problem.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 21:22             ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-09-28 12:42               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clinton Bunch; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:22:20 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote:
> I will also point out that making it "Somebody Else's Problem" Is a big=20
> part of why we haven't successfully rid ourselves of these terms in over=20
> two decades of realizing they were problematic. Let's not perpetuate the=20
> problem.

The terms are not problematic, except of course in the paranoid
delusions of those who believe.

SEP is a bad attitude to life in general, but a life-preserving strategy
when in a project with limited goals. Without a healthy degree of SEP,
UNIX would have to be maintained as a single piece. While the latter
would be a noble goal, the current situation does not allow for it to be
realized.

Unfortunately.

          --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 21:15           ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-27 21:22             ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-09-28 12:33             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:33 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clinton Bunch, zsh-workers

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 16:15:04 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote:
> For PTYs=C2=A0 I like the terms controller and subsidiary.=C2=A0 It seems=
>  to=20
> describe the relationship better than other suggestions.=C2=A0

BS. See me previous message.

> The use of=
> =20
> superior and inferior as otherwhere suggested strike me as eventually=20
> running into the same problem of being emotionally charged.

These are technical terms. Within context, they are only emotionally
charged for people who underrate the technical meanings of those words.

Next me'll complain that cat(1) is a speciecist name for a program. Or
that biff(1) *really* is out-of-date not just in function, but also in
name, and we should change it promptly. Or that wump(6) is demeaning to
real wumpuses. Or...

Let's not go down that road, people. Please.

       --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-09-27 21:15           ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-09-27 21:32           ` Mikael Magnusson
  2022-09-28  6:17             ` Felipe Contreras
                               ` (2 more replies)
  2022-09-28  6:14           ` Felipe Contreras
                             ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-09-27 21:32 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.

If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to
keep it, then we should not keep it.

-- 
Mikael Magnusson


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 21:32           ` Mikael Magnusson
@ 2022-09-28  6:17             ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-09-28  6:30               ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  2022-09-28 12:47             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-29  8:35             ` Axel Beckert
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28  6:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mikael Magnusson
  Cc: Daniel Shahaf, Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen,
	Kui K Zhang

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
> > change feel comfortable saying so publicly.
>
> If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to
> keep it, then we should not keep it.

There's nothing "bad" about the word a priori. If *you* believe it has
to be changed, then *you* have the burden of proof.

Just like any other change.

-- 
Felipe Contreras


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28  6:17             ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2022-09-28  6:30               ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  2022-09-28 12:57                 ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-29  8:23                 ` Lawrence Velázquez
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Ellenor Bjornsdottir @ 2022-09-28  6:30 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 977 bytes --]

Will this change actually harm anything - foreign libraries, etc?

If not, then because it clearly benefits some people, the cost-benefit calculus favors change.

I don't like it, but my opinion doesn't matter because the change harms nothing.

On 28 September 2022 06:17:59 UTC, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
>> > change feel comfortable saying so publicly.
>>
>> If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to
>> keep it, then we should not keep it.
>
>There's nothing "bad" about the word a priori. If *you* believe it has
>to be changed, then *you* have the burden of proof.
>
>Just like any other change.
>
>-- 
>Felipe Contreras
>

-- 
Ellenor Bjornsdottir (she)
sysadmin umbrellix.net

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1637 bytes --]

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28  6:30               ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir
@ 2022-09-28 12:57                 ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-29  8:23                 ` Lawrence Velázquez
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:57 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ellenor Bjornsdottir, zsh-workers

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 06:30:56 +0000, Ellenor Bjornsdottir <ellenor@umbrellix.net> wrote:
> ------XRFY9ASNODGQ2RMB1ZY98CLW1L91PZ
> Content-Type: text/plain;
>  charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> Will this change actually harm anything - foreign libraries, etc?

Yes. It will create inconsistency and confusion.

> If not, then because it clearly benefits some people, the cost-benefit cal=
> culus favors change=2E
>
> I don't like it, but my opinion doesn't matter because the change harms no=
> thing=2E

Even if you see no harm: that attitude tends to lead to MIME garbage,
the careless dropping of 'Cc:'s, and top-posting.

Luckily, your response doesn't suffer from any of that, does it?

Pfew.

          --zeurkous. 

>
> On 28 September 2022 06:17:59 UTC, Felipe Contreras <felipe=2Econtreras@gm=
> ail=2Ecom> wrote:
>>On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail=2Ecom> wr=
> ote:
>>>
>>> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d=2Es@daniel=2Eshahaf=2Ename> wrote:
>>> > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
>>> > change feel comfortable saying so publicly=2E
>>>
>>> If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to
>>> keep it, then we should not keep it=2E
>>
>>There's nothing "bad" about the word a priori=2E If *you* believe it has
>>to be changed, then *you* have the burden of proof=2E
>>
>>Just like any other change=2E
>>
>>--=20
>>Felipe Contreras
>>
>
> --=20
> Ellenor Bjornsdottir (she)
> sysadmin umbrellix=2Enet
> ------XRFY9ASNODGQ2RMB1ZY98CLW1L91PZ
> Content-Type: text/html;
>  charset=utf-8
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
>
> <html><head></head><body>Will this change actually harm anything - foreign =
> libraries, etc?<br><br>If not, then because it clearly benefits some people=
> , the cost-benefit calculus favors change=2E<br><br>I don't like it, but my=
>  opinion doesn't matter because the change harms nothing=2E<br><br><div cla=
> ss=3D"gmail_quote">On 28 September 2022 06:17:59 UTC, Felipe Contreras &lt;=
> felipe=2Econtreras@gmail=2Ecom&gt; wrote:<blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" =
> style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, =
> 204); padding-left: 1ex;">
> <pre dir=3D"auto" class=3D"k9mail">On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:39 PM Mikael =
> Magnusson &lt;mikachu@gmail=2Ecom&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_=
> quote" style=3D"margin: 0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid #729fcf=
> ; padding-left: 1ex;"><br> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf &lt;d=2Es@daniel=2Esha=
> haf=2Ename&gt; wrote:<br><blockquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:=
>  0pt 0pt 1ex 0=2E8ex; border-left: 1px solid #ad7fa8; padding-left: 1ex;">-=
> 1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the<br>chan=
> ge feel comfortable saying so publicly=2E<br></blockquote><br> If a word is=
>  so bad that people don't want to say that they want to<br> keep it, then w=
> e should not keep it=2E<br></blockquote><br>There's nothing "bad" about the=
>  word a priori=2E If *you* believe it has<br>to be changed, then *you* have=
>  the burden of proof=2E<br><br>Just like any other change=2E<br><br><div cl=
> ass=3D"k9mail-signature">-- <br>Felipe Contreras<br><br></div></pre></block=
> quote></div><div style=3D'white-space: pre-wrap'><div class=3D'k9mail-signa=
> ture'>-- <br>Ellenor Bjornsdottir (she)<br>sysadmin umbrellix=2Enet</div></=
> div></body></html>
> ------XRFY9ASNODGQ2RMB1ZY98CLW1L91PZ--
>

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28  6:30               ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  2022-09-28 12:57                 ` zeurkous, zeurkous
@ 2022-09-29  8:23                 ` Lawrence Velázquez
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-09-29  8:23 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ellenor Bjornsdottir; +Cc: zsh-workers

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 2:30 AM, Ellenor Bjornsdottir wrote:
> Will this change actually harm anything - foreign libraries, etc?

As far as I can tell, no.  The renamed variables are function-local.

-- 
vq


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 21:32           ` Mikael Magnusson
  2022-09-28  6:17             ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2022-09-28 12:47             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-29  8:35             ` Axel Beckert
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:47 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mikael Magnusson
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang,
	Daniel Shahaf

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 23:32:03 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
>> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.
>
> If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to
> keep it, then we should not keep it.

And that attitude, {ladies,gentlemen,...}, leads to a propagandistic
minority having the ability to dictate the majority.

Sad, isn't it?

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 21:32           ` Mikael Magnusson
  2022-09-28  6:17             ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-09-28 12:47             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
@ 2022-09-29  8:35             ` Axel Beckert
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Axel Beckert @ 2022-09-29  8:35 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 11:32:03PM +0200, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> On 9/27/22, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> > -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
> > change feel comfortable saying so publicly.
> 
> If a word is so bad that people don't want to say that they want to
> keep it, then we should not keep it.

IMHO it's the opposite way: If a change causes people to stay silent
because they fear a hate campaign if they say that they don't like
such a change, then that change shouldn't be done alone for that.

		Kind regards, Axel
-- 
PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5      /~\  Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/
Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org  \ /  Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet
Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org  X
https://axel.beckert.ch/   / \  I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-09-27 21:15           ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-27 21:32           ` Mikael Magnusson
@ 2022-09-28  6:14           ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-09-28 12:16             ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-28 12:52             ` Re: The request of words matter updated zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-28 12:08           ` zeurkous, zeurkous
                             ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  5 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-09-28  6:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:00 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>
> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.

Agreed. I am one of the few people comfortable with disagreeing to
such changes publicly:

https://felipec.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/git-master/

Plenty of people have sent me private words of encouragement stating
this master/slave terminology change is nonsense, but they don't dare
to say so publicly.

Just because the silent majority is silent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

-- 
Felipe Contreras


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28  6:14           ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2022-09-28 12:16             ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-28 13:05               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-29  4:08               ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  2022-09-28 12:52             ` Re: The request of words matter updated zeurkous, zeurkous
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-09-28 12:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras, Daniel Shahaf
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On 9/28/2022 1:14 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 4:00 PM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
>> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
>> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.
> Agreed. I am one of the few people comfortable with disagreeing to
> such changes publicly:
>
> https://felipec.wordpress.com/2020/11/13/git-master/
>
> Plenty of people have sent me private words of encouragement stating
> this master/slave terminology change is nonsense, but they don't dare
> to say so publicly.
>
> Just because the silent majority is silent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
>
Because they're silent, there is no way to tell if they are a majority.  
Personally, I think the silence comes from the fact 90-95% of people 
just don't care.


These words cause some people pain.  You may think the source of that 
pain is silly, but it doesn't make the pain any less real. (Ask anyone 
who's been clinically depressed about feeling pain other people tell you 
you shouldn't feel)

It's a small change that alleviates pain.  That should be reason enough 
to do it.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28 12:16             ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-09-28 13:05               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-29  8:49                 ` Axel Beckert
  2022-09-29  4:08               ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 13:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clinton Bunch
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang,
	Felipe Contreras, Daniel Shahaf

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 07:16:16 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote:
> On 9/28/2022 1:14 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> Because they're silent, there is no way to tell if they are a majority.=C2=
> =A0=20
> Personally, I think the silence comes from the fact 90-95% of people=20
> just don't care.

They will care once it's forced down on them. When it's too late. While
IMO it's often stupid to stay silent, they don't deserve such treatment.

> These words cause some people pain.=C2=A0

All words have the potential to cause pain.

> You may think the source of tha=
> t=20
> pain is silly,

Slavery is not a silly matter IMO. That's not the dicussion here
anyways.

> but it doesn't make the pain any less real. (Ask anyone=20
> who's been clinically depressed about feeling pain other people tell you=20
> you shouldn't feel)
>
> It's a small change that alleviates pain.=C2=A0 That should be reason eno=
> ugh=20
> to do it.

As has been explained multiple times, by different people: the change
you are proposing is not small.

And while me's truly sorry if certain technical terms cause you (or
anyone else) pain, depression, or worse: they are technical, and when
taken in context, they have no emotional load beyond what we personally,
and individually, assign to them.

Are you going to try and persuade physicists to drop Schroedinger's Cat,
because randomly gunning down cats is just cruel?

Good luck.

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28 13:05               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
@ 2022-09-29  8:49                 ` Axel Beckert
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Axel Beckert @ 2022-09-29  8:49 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

Hi,

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022 at 01:05:43PM +0000, zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org wrote:
> Slavery is not a silly matter IMO.

Ack. But slavery has no real relation to these terms anymore. They're
about processes and sockets and whatever, not about people.

Child processes are also not the result of two processes engaging with
each other, yet they're named "child" because child and parent are
also technical terms for quite a long time now, too.

> That's not the dicussion here anyways.

Exactly. And it's not what these terms are about.

They're technical terms. Not related to people.

> And while me's truly sorry if certain technical terms cause you (or
> anyone else) pain, depression, or worse: they are technical, and when
> taken in context, they have no emotional load beyond what we personally,
> and individually, assign to them.

Thanks.

		Kind regards, Axel
-- 
PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5      /~\  Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/
Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org  \ /  Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet
Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org  X
https://axel.beckert.ch/   / \  I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-09-28 12:16             ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-09-28 13:05               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
@ 2022-09-29  4:08               ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  2022-09-29 10:48                 ` De Zeurkous
  2022-09-30  4:29                 ` Bart Schaefer
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Ellenor Bjornsdottir @ 2022-09-29  4:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clinton Bunch, Daniel Shahaf, zsh-workers
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

There seems to be three contingents engaging publicly here:
  * what I'll call the IBM parties, who are here on business related
to the Words Matter policy, holding that "master/slave" terminology
is to be avoided when synonymous terminology is available
  * people speaking in support of zsh coming into adherence to the
policy
  * people speaking in opposition to zsh coming into adherence to the
policy

People speaking in support invoke the fact that the words cause pain
for some marginalized people working in tech. I am not the kind of
marginalized person for whom this would matter (I'm not racialized
nor am I a survivor of human trafficking), so I cannot speak to this,
but I will say that this charges the perception of some people who are
as unmarginalized as myself related to this topic.

They also invoke the feeling of shame the opposition feels on public
participation in the debate, as an indication that this is an idea
whose time has come. I don't like this, but I don't think it factors.

One of the two parties I've seen to openly oppose the motion have
invoked the fact that, _a priori_, there's nothing bad about these
words, which is on its face true - if you do not consider the harm
that they can do to a certain marginalized community that I see
underrepresented in tech, possibly due to this reason. The other party
has sent messages to this list that vary between ... not warranting a
response, and where they do warrant a response, being extremely
petty about mail formatting (quoted-printable) to multiple people.
Said second party also invokes the feeling of shame the opposition
feels on the matter as "a propagandistic minority having the ability
to dictate to the majority." Again, I don't think the shame of a
silent majority or minority factors. I think one can do a harms and
benefits analysis using solely practical facts.

The only inconsistency and confusion I can see occurring is if the
words are used in a public interface, and in the first few weeks to
months as people get up to speed on the new, otherwise synonymous
terminology in private interfaces. For public interfaces, a
transitional approach may be appropriate where the deprecated
terminology is used for aliases to the new terminology, and is slated
to be removed at the developer's convenience (which may be never).

To recapitulate somewhat, it appears from previous factual discussion
on the matter that the cost of making this change would be a few
cycles expended in `sed`, temporary perverse merriment as developers
adjust, and nothing else - and the benefit would be that people
triggered by human trafficking terminology would be able to
participate more effectively in zsh development moving forward. The
interface in question is private, so there's no need to worry about
transitioning public interfaces. Plugins that use this code may need
to be updated with version-based ifdefs - but do any plugins use this
code? I am not a developer, so I don't want to weigh in on a matter
that does not affect me, but I hope my analysis is useful for those
who are developers to make a reasoned decision.

-- 
Ellenor Agnes Bjornsdottir (she)
sysadmin umbrellix.net
jabber: ellenor ~on~ umbrellix.net

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-09-29  4:08               ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir
@ 2022-09-29 10:48                 ` De Zeurkous
  2022-09-29 12:11                   ` FU: " zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-30  4:29                 ` Bart Schaefer
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: De Zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Clinton Bunch,
	Daniel Shahaf, zsh-workers

On Thu, 29 Sep 2022 04:08:21 +0000, Ellenor Bjornsdottir <ellenor@umbrellix.net> wrote:
> There seems to be three contingents engaging publicly here:
>  =C2=A0* what I'll call the IBM parties, who are here on business related
> to the Words Matter policy, holding that "master/slave" terminology
> is to be avoided when synonymous terminology is available
>  =C2=A0* people speaking in support of zsh coming into adherence to the
> policy
>   * people speaking in opposition to zsh coming into adherence to the
> policy

That appears to be an accurate summary, except that you forgot one
contigent--
   * people speaking out that they don't care whether or not zsh comes
     into adherence with the policy

> People speaking in support invoke the fact that the words cause pain
> for some marginalized people working in tech. I am not the kind of
> marginalized person for whom this would matter (I'm not racialized
> nor am I a survivor of human trafficking),

Some would say that being a girl in "tech" (that word is so overused by
the mainstream that it has become near-meaningless -- hell, they've been
referring to utterly bureaucratic matters as "technical"!) puts one in a
marginalized position. (Me's not sure me agrees with that one, however
-- don't shoot the messenger.)

> so I cannot speak to this,
> but I will say that this charges the perception of some people who are
> as unmarginalized as myself related to this topic.

Me's not sure what that's supposed to mean.

> They also invoke the feeling of shame the opposition feels on public
> participation in the debate, as an indication that this is an idea
> whose time has come. I don't like this, but I don't think it factors.

If that's so: it doesn't work on me. Nor does it seem to work on most
main contributors.

> One of the two parties I've seen to openly oppose the motion have
> invoked the fact that, _a priori_, there's nothing bad about these
> words, which is on its face true - if you do not consider the harm
> that they can do to a certain marginalized community that I see
> underrepresented in tech, possibly due to this reason.

Technological affairs are by definition harsh, as technology can't be
fooled. That by itself requires people, black or purple, cat or human,
to be rather thick-skinned (or is the latter now a racial appellation,
too? :x).

> The other party
> has sent messages to this list that vary between ... not warranting a
> response, and where they do warrant a response, being extremely
> petty about mail formatting (quoted-printable) to multiple people.

Lol. Defending the most basic of technical standards is now "petty"? 8)7

(Your off-list message was base64-encoded, btw. Medid, of course, not
bother to decode yet another layer.)

> Said second party also invokes the feeling of shame the opposition
> feels on the matter as "a propagandistic minority having the ability
> to dictate to the majority." Again, I don't think the shame of a
> silent majority or minority factors. I think one can do a harms and
> benefits analysis using solely practical facts.

Yes. But projects like these run (more or less) on consensus. If people
are shamed into not expressing their honest views, false consensuses
will form.  That would be a significant loss to the project.

> The only inconsistency and confusion I can see occurring is if the
> words are used in a public interface, and in the first few weeks to
> months as people get up to speed on the new, otherwise synonymous
> terminology in private interfaces. For public interfaces, a
> transitional approach may be appropriate where the deprecated
> terminology is used for aliases to the new terminology, and is slated
> to be removed at the developer's convenience (which may be never).

Look, instead of wasting time on all that, have you considered that the
design of the pty system itself might be flawed? That it may well be
more appropriate to have general loopback devices, that can be put to
many more uses. In that case, the term "master" would naturally be
replaced with something like "server", and "slave" with something like
"client" (read up on microkernels if you're not familiar with the
concept).

While that would be far beyond the purview of the zsh project alone, it
would at least give a good opportunity to change the terms. And hell,
it's been decades since ptys were zeroth implemented. It's about time
for a revision (or, as me's proposing: the development of a more
general mechanism that would eclipse both ptys and the "problematic"
terms).

Why not focus on that, instead of trying to nail Jell-O(tm) to a tree
here....?

> To recapitulate somewhat, it appears from previous factual discussion
> on the matter that the cost of making this change would be a few
> cycles expended in `sed`, temporary perverse merriment as developers
> adjust, and nothing else - and the benefit would be that people
> triggered by human trafficking terminology would be able to
> participate more effectively in zsh development moving forward.

"human trafficking terminology"?

You aren't serious, are you?

Ever heard of wage slavery?

> The
> interface in question is private,

Yet, it has to align with the public one to be meaningful.

> so there's no need to worry about
> transitioning public interfaces. Plugins that use this code may need
> to be updated with version-based ifdefs - but do any plugins use this
> code? I am not a developer, so I don't want to weigh in on a matter
> that does not affect me, but I hope my analysis is useful for those
> who are developers to make a reasoned decision.

Yes. It makes it quite clear that it's all a bunch of windbaggery[0],
perpetuated by those seeking attention for its own sake, and we have
better ways to spend our time.

Baai,

         --zeurkous. 

[0] Too bad me's the bigger windbag, eh?

>
> --=20
> Ellenor Agnes Bjornsdottir (she)
> sysadmin umbrellix.net
> jabber: ellenor ~on~ umbrellix.net
>
>

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* FU: RE: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-09-29 10:48                 ` De Zeurkous
@ 2022-09-29 12:11                   ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-29 12:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

Sorry for not including a proper 'From:' header in me message (me blames
me then-sleepy head, combined with a two-layer mail setup that me really
should get around to fixing). Medid send a fixed version, yet in the
hurry to do so me didn't update the Message-ID, so it does not appear to
have made it to this list.

Again me apologies (also for this noise),
         --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-09-29  4:08               ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  2022-09-29 10:48                 ` De Zeurkous
@ 2022-09-30  4:29                 ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-09-30  5:14                   ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
  1 sibling, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-30  4:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  Cc: Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

Thoughts and questions.

I see a number of people have capitalized "Words Matter".  I also find
it interesting that this thread was initiated by IBM employees in
China who are apparently not regular participants in zsh-workers or
zsh-users.  Is there an IBM corporate initiative called "Words Matter"
that led to this discussion being opened at this particular time?  As
has been mentioned, this topic has been around a long time (2007 at
least; https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/masterslave/).

Obviously the term "master" has definitions and connotations that
reference skill level, origin of concept or data, etc.  Those
connotations are typically clear from context.  On the other hand, the
word "slave" always refers to subservience and captivity (whether or
not accepted by "consenting adults"), and therefore carries the
emotional baggage that also attaches to "master" when the words are
paired.  (The Snopes article is some evidence that this is not just a
"white knight" issue.)

Arguments focused on those other connotations of "master" are missing
the point.  Whether or not one thinks emotional baggage is being
self-righteously exaggerated or is a valid basis to make a technical
change, it can't just be waved away with "but that shouldn't matter in
this abstraction."  If they weren't evocative, those words wouldn't
have been chosen to begin with.

(In grad school I worked on a project to compute fractal graphics with
a multiprocessor computer.  I called the nodes that did the
computation "students" and the thread that collected the results and
rendered an image the "faculty".  When I explained during a
presentation that the former did all the work and the latter got all
the credit, the reaction was ... mixed.)

In any case this mailing list is not the place to speculate about
motivations or debate the evolution of language.  We have a request
before us from an interested third party and a proposed partial
response to that request.  (List of files mentioning "slave" follows,
to explain why I say "partial".)

Questions I think it is reasonable to discuss are:

Assuming the original request is part of an IBM initiative, does
rejecting it have an impact on the availability/adoption of zsh?

Is it likely that other influential companies are going to follow
suit?  E.g., Apple appears to have adopted zsh as a default shell in
MacOS.  Is a similar request eventually to come from that quarter?  If
we don't act, are they likely to fork the code and do it themselves?

Is a change in terminology going to cause confusion with upstream
source or with packages we don't control?  E.g., several of the files
below are completions, and arguably it would not make sense to remove
strings still in use by the corresponding commands/contexts.  (We've
already answered this for zpty.c in particular.)

Is a change going to have a detrimental user-visible effect?  (This is
a more general version of the previous question.)

If the foregoing are all "no", what's the degree of effort and who is
prepared to work on it (rather than just spend time debating it)?

Here's the list of files mentioning "slave"; answers to some of the
above may vary per file:

./Functions/TCP/tcp_spam
./Src/Modules/zpty.c
./Etc/ChangeLog-3.1
./ChangeLog
./Completion/Linux/Command/_ethtool
./Completion/Linux/Command/_lsblk
./Completion/Linux/Command/_unshare
./Completion/Linux/Command/_sshfs
./Completion/Linux/Command/_networkmanager
./Completion/X/Command/_xinput
./Completion/X/Command/_mplayer
./Completion/Debian/Command/_update-alternatives
./Completion/Unix/Command/_mysql_utils
./Completion/Unix/Command/_mount

There are a lot more mentioning "master" but with the exception of
mod_zpty.yo I think they may be considered to fall among the
inoffensive connotations of that term.  (If someone wants to dig
deeper, see "who is prepared to work on it?" above.)  For what it's
worth, I think the "master" git branch belongs in that category too,
and am not advocating to rename that in our project.  I am also not
advocating for a rewrite of history, so the ChangeLog files are IMO
out of bounds.

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-09-30  4:29                 ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-09-30  5:14                   ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-09-30  5:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir
  Cc: Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 9:29 PM Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>
> If the foregoing are all "no"

Sorry, I reworded a couple of questions to make them clearer and that
reversed the sense of the answer.  Hopefully it's obvious what I
meant.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-09-30  4:29                 ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-09-30  5:14                   ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-10-08 10:12                     ` zeurkous
                                       ` (4 more replies)
  1 sibling, 5 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-10-08  8:41 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bart Schaefer
  Cc: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch,
	Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:34 PM Bart Schaefer
<schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>
> Thoughts and questions.
>
> I see a number of people have capitalized "Words Matter".  I also find
> it interesting that this thread was initiated by IBM employees in
> China who are apparently not regular participants in zsh-workers or
> zsh-users.  Is there an IBM corporate initiative called "Words Matter"
> that led to this discussion being opened at this particular time?  As
> has been mentioned, this topic has been around a long time (2007 at
> least; https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/masterslave/).
>
> Obviously the term "master" has definitions and connotations that
> reference skill level, origin of concept or data, etc.  Those
> connotations are typically clear from context.  On the other hand, the
> word "slave" always refers to subservience and captivity (whether or
> not accepted by "consenting adults"), and therefore carries the
> emotional baggage that also attaches to "master" when the words are
> paired.  (The Snopes article is some evidence that this is not just a
> "white knight" issue.)
>
> Arguments focused on those other connotations of "master" are missing
> the point.  Whether or not one thinks emotional baggage is being
> self-righteously exaggerated or is a valid basis to make a technical
> change, it can't just be waved away with "but that shouldn't matter in
> this abstraction."  If they weren't evocative, those words wouldn't
> have been chosen to begin with.

All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our
cultural zeitgeist.

Today a person saying the n-word with certain skin pigmentation would
be labelled a racist, whereas a person with a different skin
pigmentation would have no problem. A person opining about abortion
who happens to be male would be told to shut up, whereas a female
never would. A woman wearing inappropriate clothes would be
criticized, but not a trans woman. My point is that in today's society
superficial features of your identity do matter: the color of your
skin, your sexual orientation, genitals, etc.

So, as a cis whilte male my opinion objectively does not matter. Which
is why if I say "I have no problem with the term 'master'", nobody
cares. On the other hand if a black person says "I have a problem with
the term 'master'", everyone cares.

The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have
a problem with the term "master". Have they?

Our sense of empathy has been emotionally blackmailed to have sympathy
for these hypothetical people that do not exist. We are bending over
backwards thinking about an intrusive change that benefits *no one*,
because we are told some oppressed minority might benefit.

But this doesn't change the fundamentals of logic: he who makes the
claim has the burden of proof. The people who are proposing the change
have the burden of proof.

Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who
finds the term personally offensive?

We should not be listening to people being offended *by proxy* saying
"I think some people will find the term offensive". Does anybody find
the term personally and directly offensive themselves?

-- 
Felipe Contreras

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2022-10-08 10:12                     ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 10:12                     ` zeurkous
                                       ` (3 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras
  Cc: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch,
	Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

[Fixed 'From:' address... sigh.]

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:34 PM Bart Schaefer
> <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts and questions.
>>
>[snip]
>
> All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our
> cultural zeitgeist.
>
> Today a person saying the n-word with certain skin pigmentation would
> be labelled a racist, whereas a person with a different skin
> pigmentation would have no problem. A person opining about abortion
> who happens to be male would be told to shut up, whereas a female
> never would. A woman wearing inappropriate clothes would be
> criticized, but not a trans woman. My point is that in today's society
> superficial features of your identity do matter: the color of your
> skin, your sexual orientation, genitals, etc.

Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us,
identity politics have arrived here. Can we just put a dead stop to that
now, all of us, *please*?

         --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-10-08 10:12                     ` zeurkous
@ 2022-10-08 10:12                     ` zeurkous
       [not found]                     ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
                                       ` (2 subsequent siblings)
  4 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:12 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras
  Cc: zsh-workers, Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch,
	Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 29, 2022 at 11:34 PM Bart Schaefer
> <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>>
>> Thoughts and questions.
>>
>[snip]
>
> All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our
> cultural zeitgeist.
>
> Today a person saying the n-word with certain skin pigmentation would
> be labelled a racist, whereas a person with a different skin
> pigmentation would have no problem. A person opining about abortion
> who happens to be male would be told to shut up, whereas a female
> never would. A woman wearing inappropriate clothes would be
> criticized, but not a trans woman. My point is that in today's society
> superficial features of your identity do matter: the color of your
> skin, your sexual orientation, genitals, etc.

Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us,
identity politics have arrived here. Can we just put a dead stop to that
now, all of us, *please*?

         --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

[parent not found: <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>]

* Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
       [not found]                     ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
@ 2022-10-08 10:48                       ` Mikael Magnusson
  2022-10-08 11:06                         ` zeurkous
       [not found]                         ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
  0 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 10:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaap.org <zeurkous@blaatscaap.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>[snip]
[snipped opinions i don't want to quote]
>
> Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us.

Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two
people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending
one or a few patches to the list.

-- 
Mikael Magnusson


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 10:48                       ` Mikael Magnusson
@ 2022-10-08 11:06                         ` zeurkous
       [not found]                         ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 11:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mikael Magnusson, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:48:52 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaap.org <zeurkous@blaatscaap.org> wrote:
>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>[snip]
> [snipped opinions i don't want to quote]
>>
>> Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us.
>
> Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two
> people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending
> one or a few patches to the list.

While me certainly won't exaggerate me own importance, your message
would seem to constitute an ad hominem attack.

Take a break.

         --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

[parent not found: <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>]

* Re: Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
       [not found]                         ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
@ 2022-10-08 11:20                           ` Mikael Magnusson
  2022-10-08 11:59                             ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 11:20 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zeurkous; +Cc: zsh-workers

On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org <zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org> wrote:
> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:48:52 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 10/8/22, zeurkous@blaatscaap.org <zeurkous@blaatscaap.org> wrote:
>>> On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 03:41:20 -0500, Felipe Contreras
>>> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>[snip]
>> [snipped opinions i don't want to quote]
>>>
>>> Indeed, it seems that with the request that has been made of us.
>>
>> Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two
>> people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending
>> one or a few patches to the list.
>
> While me certainly won't exaggerate me own importance, your message
> would seem to constitute an ad hominem attack.

Is it now an ad hominem attack to say someone is not affiliated with
the zsh project? I only clarified because you keep saying "we" even
though you're a 3rd party.

-- 
Mikael Magnusson


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: Re: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 11:20                           ` Mikael Magnusson
@ 2022-10-08 11:59                             ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 11:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mikael Magnusson; +Cc: zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 13:20:10 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Just to clarify this to any outsider following this thread, these two
>>> people are not affiliated with the zsh project other than by sending
>>> one or a few patches to the list.
>>
>> While me certainly won't exaggerate me own importance, your message
>> would seem to constitute an ad hominem attack.
>
> Is it now an ad hominem attack to say someone is not affiliated with
> the zsh project?

You did not mean to imply that the words of Felipe and me are somehow
worth less than those that have submitted a gazillion patches instead of
a couple (or, in me case, just one; which was, BTW, accepted (albeit in
its 2nd revision))...?

> I only clarified because you keep saying "we" even
> though you're a 3rd party.

Me uses zsh constantly. Me's been following this list for a while. Me
has a considerable stake in zsh's future. Given all, me's hardly a 3rd
party[0]. 2nd party, perhaps. But not 3rd.

         --zeurkous.

[0] Believe me, me'd rather be a 3rd party, 'cause me's got enough
     problems already.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
                                       ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
       [not found]                     ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
@ 2022-10-08 16:48                     ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-10-08 16:54                       ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 17:55                     ` Eric Cook
  4 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 16:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers
  Cc: Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:41 AM Felipe Contreras
<felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our
> cultural zeitgeist.

No, you don't.  This list is not for discussion of cultural zeitgeist.

IBM as a corporate entity may have had such a discussion that led to a
company policy that led in turn to their representatives making a
request, but the only thing we have to consider is whether it's a
reasonable request and whether it has any consequences (beyond setting
off a pointless emotional sidebar that's going to convince no one and
has already devolved into trolling).

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 16:48                     ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-10-08 16:54                       ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 16:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bart Schaefer, zsh-workers
  Cc: Ellenor Bjornsdottir, Clinton Bunch, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 09:48:38 -0700, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 1:41 AM Felipe Contreras
> <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> All good points and questions, but I have to point out a fact of our
>> cultural zeitgeist.
>
> No, you don't.  This list is not for discussion of cultural zeitgeist.

Yes, but while he may be clumsy in expounding on his point, he does have
one.

> IBM as a corporate entity may have had such a discussion that led to a
> company policy that led in turn to their representatives making a
> request, but the only thing we have to consider is whether it's a
> reasonable request and whether it has any consequences (beyond setting
> off a pointless emotional sidebar that's going to convince no one and
> has already devolved into trolling).

To do that, we'll have to consider the basis of the request. If me's
right and the basis is politics -- and given that OP still hasn't
answered Wesley's very valid question -- well, should we, in the context
of our apolitical project, really consider it reasonable?

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
                                       ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-10-08 16:48                     ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-10-08 17:55                     ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-08 18:09                       ` Eric Cook
                                         ` (2 more replies)
  4 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Eric Cook @ 2022-10-08 17:55 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have
> a problem with the term "master". Have they?

> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who
> finds the term personally offensive?

Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 17:55                     ` Eric Cook
@ 2022-10-08 18:09                       ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-08 18:24                         ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-10-08 18:25                         ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 18:11                       ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 19:58                       ` Bart Schaefer
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Eric Cook @ 2022-10-08 18:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 10/8/22 1:55 PM, Eric Cook wrote:
> On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have
>> a problem with the term "master". Have they?
>
>> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who
>> finds the term personally offensive?
>
> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.
>
>
These two variables could be named anything, you and zeurkous whining about it is getting
incredibly annoying; way more so than any argument put forth in how this would negatively
affect zsh thus far.

renaming the master branch is user affecting so i would prefer to keep it, changing listmaster@
faqmaster@ is user affecting and would require more effort on our part so i would keep them.

if i would to push the change i doubt either of you two would notice.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 18:09                       ` Eric Cook
@ 2022-10-08 18:24                         ` Clinton Bunch
  2022-10-08 18:43                           ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 18:25                         ` zeurkous
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Clinton Bunch @ 2022-10-08 18:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 10/8/2022 1:09 PM, Eric Cook wrote:
> On 10/8/22 1:55 PM, Eric Cook wrote:
>> On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have
>>> a problem with the term "master". Have they?
>>
>>> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who
>>> finds the term personally offensive?
>>
>> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.
>>
>>
> These two variables could be named anything, you and zeurkous whining 
> about it is getting
> incredibly annoying; way more so than any argument put forth in how 
> this would negatively
> affect zsh thus far.
>
> renaming the master branch is user affecting so i would prefer to keep 
> it, changing listmaster@
> faqmaster@ is user affecting and would require more effort on our part 
> so i would keep them.
>
> if i would to push the change i doubt either of you two would notice.
>
It's not the words themselves, at least for me, but the analogy they 
evoke.   This is not the only analogy to describe the relationship 
between the two parts of a psuedo-terminal, nor even the best IMHO.

The word master by itself does not evoke an analogy to slavery. There is 
also the analogy to a master of a craft, at least.



^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 18:24                         ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-10-08 18:43                           ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Clinton Bunch, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 13:24:22 -0500, Clinton Bunch <cdbunch@zentaur.org> wrote:
> It's not the words themselves, at least for me, but the analogy they=20
> evoke.=C2=A0=C2=A0 This is not the only analogy to describe the relations=
> hip=20
> between the two parts of a psuedo-terminal, nor even the best IMHO.

As me noted before: perhaps the very {master,slave} dichtomy has
caused pty(4) to be so full of warts, and so... ungeneric.

> The word master by itself does not evoke an analogy to slavery. There is=20
> also the analogy to a master of a craft, at least.

Yes. Though to a degree, that can also apply to `slave': "a slave of
one's own reputation", for example.

Just food for thought...

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 18:09                       ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-08 18:24                         ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-10-08 18:25                         ` zeurkous
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eric Cook, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 14:09:11 -0400, Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/22 1:55 PM, Eric Cook wrote:
>> On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>>> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have
>>> a problem with the term "master". Have they?
>>
>>> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who
>>> finds the term personally offensive?
>>
>> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.
>>
>>
> These two variables could be named anything,

In theory, yes, of course. In practice, things are often named a certain
way for a reason. Whether that reason is good or not has apparently
become subject of debate, for this instance.

> you and zeurkous whining abou=
> t it is getting
> incredibly annoying;

Perspective. People whining about technical terms "causing them pain" is
pretty annoying to me, provided said terms are descriptive.

> way more so than any argument put forth in how this w=
> ould negatively
> affect zsh thus far.

Me's put forward such arguments. Why don't you respond to them?

(Me might be a whining bastard, but me can do more than just whine.)

> renaming the master branch is user affecting so i would prefer to keep it,=
>  changing listmaster@
> faqmaster@ is user affecting and would require more effort on our part so =
> i would keep them.

There are no corresponding 'slave' parts in those cases, though, are
there...?

> if i would to push the change i doubt either of you two would notice.

Then push it. If it sufficiently annoys you, you should push it.

Me's just worried about setting a potential precedent. That's all.

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 17:55                     ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-08 18:09                       ` Eric Cook
@ 2022-10-08 18:11                       ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 19:58                       ` Bart Schaefer
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:11 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Eric Cook, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 13:55:14 -0400, Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/22 4:41 AM, Felipe Contreras wrote:
>> The problem is that **not a single** black person has claimed to have
>> a problem with the term "master". Have they?
>
>> Has anyone proposing the change brought forward a black person who
>> finds the term personally offensive?
>
> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.

That's a piece of concrete data among all the theoretical debate --
thanks :)

         --zeurkous.


-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 17:55                     ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-08 18:09                       ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-08 18:11                       ` zeurkous
@ 2022-10-08 19:58                       ` Bart Schaefer
  2022-10-08 20:17                         ` zeurkous
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Bart Schaefer @ 2022-10-08 19:58 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote:
>
> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.

This is the point (which I tried to make in my "thoughts" message):
The term of offense is not "master" by itself, but that's the word
that all arguments against making a change have latched onto.  A
secondary point is that its hypocritical to claim both that this
should be an apolitical technical decision and also to assert that
it's only a valid issue if certain recognizable segments of the user
base are those expressing an opinion.

There is no use of "slave" I can find that does not imply being
unwillingly bound or restricted.  Playacting at same does not
constitute an exception.  That a particular use does not refer to
human trafficking does not remove the implication or the analogy.

Changing unrelated uses of "master" is not even up for debate here.

However, what should be considered is the ten or so other and more
visible (because they're in shell scripts) uses of "slave".  As far as
I'm concerned, that's the only reason this discussion hasn't already
been called by fiat (as in, by PWS pushing the patch he's already
proposed, or something very much like it).

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted)
  2022-10-08 19:58                       ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-10-08 20:17                         ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 20:17 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bart Schaefer, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:58:02 -0700, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 8, 2022 at 10:55 AM Eric Cook <llua@gmx.com> wrote:
>>
>> Within the context that master _and_ slave is used, i do.
>
> This is the point (which I tried to make in my "thoughts" message):
> The term of offense is not "master" by itself, but that's the word
> that all arguments against making a change have latched onto.

Not me. To me, it's about both words, together.

> A
> secondary point is that its hypocritical to claim both that this
> should be an apolitical technical decision and also to assert that
> it's only a valid issue if certain recognizable segments of the user
> base are those expressing an opinion.

Apparently me hasn't been clear: to me, it *is* an apolitical technical
decision; yet, me can perfectly live w/ the fact that other people feel
differently, and me's been trying to accomodate them, /even as me does
not agree/.

No hypocrisy there. Just civility.

> There is no use of "slave" I can find that does not imply being
> unwillingly bound or restricted. Playacting at same does not
> constitute an exception.

Me's not into BDSM, but me's pretty sure not all of it is "playacting"
as such.

Perhaps me's splitting hairs...

> That a particular use does not refer to
> human trafficking does not remove the implication or the analogy.

You're right.

> Changing unrelated uses of "master" is not even up for debate here.

A neutral observation: one change like this tends to lead to others in
different places. Thus they may very well being up for debate (or worse:
silently taken for granted, just because an earlier change, in the same
vein, was accepted).

A non-neutral observation: me's concerned about that.

> However, what should be considered is the ten or so other and more
> visible (because they're in shell scripts) uses of "slave".  As far as
> I'm concerned, that's the only reason this discussion hasn't already
> been called by fiat (as in, by PWS pushing the patch he's already
> proposed, or something very much like it).

If anyone pushes the change: me'll consider the matter closed.

Me disagreement is not worth this churn.

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28  6:14           ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-09-28 12:16             ` Clinton Bunch
@ 2022-09-28 12:52             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:52 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras
  Cc: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang,
	Daniel Shahaf

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 01:14:55 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just because the silent majority is silent doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Amen.

Though it does make them all too easy to ignore.

(And then there's the matter of whether the majority, silent or not,
really ought to be our moral guide... far beyond the scope of this list
though.)

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
                             ` (2 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-09-28  6:14           ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2022-09-28 12:08           ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-09-28 16:34           ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-09-29  8:31           ` Axel Beckert
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 12:08 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf, zsh-workers
  Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Peter Stephenson

Haai,

On Tue, 27 Sep 2022 20:54:46 +0000, "Daniel Shahaf" <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.

*nods*

So me'll speak up: me's for keeping the current terminology, for the
following reasons--

 0) Me certainly hopes that no-one imagines an actual {master,slave}
    relationship when the words are applied to ptys, hdds, or w/ever. To 
    the degree that they do: they're insufficiently distinguishing
    technical shorthand from unfortunate tedencies in human history
    (and, to a degree, sadly not limited to history).

 1) The terms are entrenched and replacing them generates confusion,
    churn in declarations, etc.

 2) There are no plausible alternatives as far as me can see. The
    proposed {owner,subsidiary} -- and similar -- terms again imply a
    relationship of personal and economic exploitation (just this time
    covered with a mildly fuzzy blanket).

    The politically correct interface terms, {primary,secondary}, imply
    that the limit of the sequence is not 1, which is IMO not helpful
    here either.

    If anything, me'd opt for {dom,sub}, but apart from it probably
    being just as little politically acceptable, that creates confusion
    with existing technical terms (although such confusion is always, to
    a degree, unavoidable).

 3) We have better ways to spend our time. Me probably wouldn't have
    responded if me hadn't just come out of the shower ;)

HTH,

        --zeurkous. 

P.S., OT: Me's been trying to migrate me list membership to me new
          addy, <zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org>. The confirmation message
          never arrived and me attempt to contact the maintainer
          resulted in silence. Can the maintainer please privately
          contact me to sort this out? TIA :)

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
                             ` (3 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-09-28 12:08           ` zeurkous, zeurkous
@ 2022-09-28 16:34           ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-09-28 16:42             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
                               ` (2 more replies)
  2022-09-29  8:31           ` Axel Beckert
  5 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-09-28 16:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On 27/09/2022 21:54 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> I will also point out that tracking the terms used by the formal parameters
> in the callee's header files or documentation, as proposed upthread — is
> a clear, objective criterion; makes the terminology decisions Someone
> Else's Problem; makes the code easier to read; and involves less churn.
> Without advocating for that particular solution or considering what
> downsides it may have, I do wish to say those properties thereof seem
> desirable.

As Lawrence and Bart already noted, there's no good steer here from the
various technical documents, or even vendors' manual pages.  The only
hint in this direction might be to use ptm and pts, which doesn't seem
very elegant or likely to achieve any kind of consensus, so I won't
propose it.

I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major
feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper"
and "lower"?

Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
sign of a consensus.

Cheers
pws

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28 16:34           ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-09-28 16:42             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-10-03 14:25             ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-10-03 15:27             ` Wesley
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous, zeurkous @ 2022-09-28 16:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Wed, 28 Sep 2022 17:34:04 +0100 (BST), Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major
> feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper"
> and "lower"?

Or "left" and "right". Or "head" and "tail". Or "straight-angled" and
"diagonal"... each terminology has its own downsides, it seems.

> Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> sign of a consensus.

To me: no consensus -> no change. But perhaps that's too easy.

Either way: me's inclined to call a popular vote on the matter a
pointless waste of time.

And as for the proposed technology: mecan be assured that it would not
require javashi^H^Hcript, cookies, or other such nonsense? And who will
take the time to do it? Who won't have anything better to do...?

        --zeurkous.

>
> Cheers
> pws
>

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28 16:34           ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-09-28 16:42             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
@ 2022-10-03 14:25             ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-10-03 14:43               ` zeurkous
                                 ` (2 more replies)
  2022-10-03 15:27             ` Wesley
  2 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-03 14:25 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

> On 28/09/2022 17:34 Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
> As Lawrence and Bart already noted, there's no good steer here from the
> various technical documents, or even vendors' manual pages.

Lawrence has some new input here, I'll keep that separate.

> Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> sign of a consensus.

This appears to be where we're going.  I'll do some research on this, but
if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know.

Thanks for the various cogent analyses of the points on both sides.
Beyond that, I don't think anyone has been called a Nazi yet, but there's
still time.

I think the ultimate reason this is contentious is it's something of a
curveball (googly in my terminology; nothing to do with Mountain View,
if anything still falls in that category) --- it brings in a whole
heap of things not usually expected on a technical list, so all of us
in turn bring in a whole heap of our own non-technical ideas.  At
least, that's about the only way to rationalise an involved discussion
on two words in a file that (as has been pointed out) most people will
never actually read.

Q&A
---

Q. Isn't it terrible people have such different ideas from me?
A. You might as well complain about night being different from day.
And actually I think it's good to have this discussion out in the 
open rather than just closed groups of true believers.

Q. But surely my position is so obviously right it has to win by default?
A. No, for the same reason.  There's no "obvious" at this level.  The
fact people come to such different conclusions means it requires
some consideration.  A vote looks to me the right way of doing this.

pws

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-03 14:25             ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-10-03 14:43               ` zeurkous
  2022-10-03 23:24               ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-04  5:29               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-03 14:43 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Stephenson, zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

Haai,

On Mon, 3 Oct 2022 15:25:13 +0100 (BST), Peter Stephenson <p.w.stephenson@ntlworld.com> wrote:
>> Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
>> at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
>> from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
>> sign of a consensus.
>
> This appears to be where we're going.  I'll do some research on this, but
> if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know.

Anonymous voting? Over the Interwebz? That'd be a great idea! :)

> Thanks for the various cogent analyses of the points on both sides.
> Beyond that, I don't think anyone has been called a Nazi yet, but there's
> still time.

(SCNR) You're no better than Hitler! 

There, rectified that.

> I think the ultimate reason this is contentious is it's something of a
> curveball (googly in my terminology; nothing to do with Mountain View,
> if anything still falls in that category) --- it brings in a whole
> heap of things not usually expected on a technical list, so all of us
> in turn bring in a whole heap of our own non-technical ideas.  At
> least, that's about the only way to rationalise an involved discussion
> on two words in a file that (as has been pointed out) most people will
> never actually read.

Precedent. It has the potential to set a precedent that may lead to far
greater upheaval in the future.

Me's still pondering Bart's words (they tend to deserve that kind of
time).

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-03 14:25             ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-10-03 14:43               ` zeurkous
@ 2022-10-03 23:24               ` Eric Cook
  2022-10-04  0:45                 ` Wesley
  2022-10-04  5:29               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Eric Cook @ 2022-10-03 23:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 10/3/22 10:25, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>
>> Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
>> at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
>> from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
>> sign of a consensus.

based on the participants of this thread thus far:

neutral - mikael  - contributor w/commitbit
neutral - eric    - contributor w/commitbit
neutral - ellenor - mailing list denizen
yay - bart     - core contributor
yay - peter    - core contributor
yay - lawrence - contributor
yay - clinton  - mailing list denizen
yay - IBM      - requester
nay - daniel   - core(?) contributor
nay - zeurkous - contributor
nay - felipe   - contributor
nay - wesley   - contributor
nay - axel     - contributor





^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-03 23:24               ` Eric Cook
@ 2022-10-04  0:45                 ` Wesley
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Wesley @ 2022-10-04  0:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 10/3/22 19:24, Eric Cook wrote:
> On 10/3/22 10:25, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>>
>>> Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
>>> at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
>>> from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
>>> sign of a consensus.
>
> based on the participants of this thread thus far:
>
> nay - wesley   - contributor

You can change my stance to neutral. I'm not for it, but as stated in my
  e-mail I think IBM should drive the change (supply the patches) if
they want the change to happen.

Cheers,
Wesley

--
Wesley Schwengle




^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-03 14:25             ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-10-03 14:43               ` zeurkous
  2022-10-03 23:24               ` Eric Cook
@ 2022-10-04  5:29               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04  5:48                 ` Daniel Shahaf
                                   ` (2 more replies)
  2 siblings, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04  5:29 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Stephenson; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

> > Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> > at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> > from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> > sign of a consensus.
> 
> This appears to be where we're going.  I'll do some research on this, but
> if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know.
> 

I don't think it's time to vote yet; see
<https://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#when-to-vote>.

As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants
unhappy.  Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on.

If we do vote, we'll have to decide who will have the right to vote;
whether the votes would be public; and what options the ballot will
have; and agree on a voting system <https://xkcd.com/1844/>.

> Thanks for the various cogent analyses of the points on both sides.
> Beyond that, I don't think anyone has been called a Nazi yet, but there's
> still time.
> 
> I think the ultimate reason this is contentious is it's something of a
> curveball (googly in my terminology; nothing to do with Mountain View,
> if anything still falls in that category) --- it brings in a whole
> heap of things not usually expected on a technical list, so all of us
> in turn bring in a whole heap of our own non-technical ideas.  At
> least, that's about the only way to rationalise an involved discussion
> on two words in a file that (as has been pointed out) most people will
> never actually read.
> 

Exactly.  The proposed patch doesn't affect generated machine code in
any way; it only affects source code and debug symbols (= it only
affects developers of zsh itself).  The arguments have nothing to do
with, say, the C execution model or forward compatibility and everything
to do with people.

[I'd link to a Wikipedia page with a list of arguments for and against
changing master/slave terminologies, but I can't find one.]

> Q&A
> ---
> 
> Q. Isn't it terrible people have such different ideas from me?
> A. You might as well complain about night being different from day.
> And actually I think it's good to have this discussion out in the 
> open rather than just closed groups of true believers.
> 
> Q. But surely my position is so obviously right it has to win by default?
> A. No, for the same reason.  There's no "obvious" at this level.  The
> fact people come to such different conclusions means it requires
> some consideration.  A vote looks to me the right way of doing this.

What wins by default is the status quo.

Cheers,

Daniel


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  5:29               ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-10-04  5:48                 ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04 23:31                   ` zeurkous
  2022-10-04 11:14                 ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-10-08 18:14                 ` Martijn Dekker
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04  5:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Peter Stephenson; +Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 05:29:55 +0000:
> > > Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> > > at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> > > from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> > > sign of a consensus.
> > 
> > This appears to be where we're going.  I'll do some research on this, but
> > if anyone has pointers to a good place for an anonymous vote, let me know.
> > 
> 
> I don't think it's time to vote yet; see
> <https://producingoss.com/en/consensus-democracy.html#when-to-vote>.
> 
> As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants
> unhappy.  Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on.

I'll get the ball rolling:

- Use whatever terms the documentation of the function we call uses for
  these.  Whoever has an opinion on these terms — support, opposition,
  or anything else — is welcome to take it up with our dependencies'
  maintainers /as an individual/, but zsh /as a project/ will take no
  position on this issue, in order to facilitate collaboration between
  people who disagree on this issue.

  I mentioned this upthread, but (deliberately) not phrased it as
  a proposal at that time.

  To be clear, the proposal isn't to practise a Bystander Effect-esque
  "let someone else be the first to do something" behaviour.  The
  proposal is to name the actual parameters after the formal parameters.
  Disagreements about what to name formal parameters in zsh.git will
  remain this list's buck.  This is similar to the difference between
  a ring of N anonymous processors and a ring of N anonymous processors
  of which one is the leader.

- Let the variable names be chosen by a configure option.  (That means
  generating zpty.c from zpty.c.ac.)  The option's name, its possible
  values, and the behaviour when the option isn't passed will have to be
  decided upon.

Dnaiel


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  5:48                 ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-10-04 23:31                   ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-04 23:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf
  Cc: zsh-workers, Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang, Peter Stephenson

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 05:48:01 +0000, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> - Let the variable names be chosen by a configure option.  (That means
>   generating zpty.c from zpty.c.ac.)  The option's name, its possible
>   values, and the behaviour when the option isn't passed will have to be
>   decided upon.

Me honestly feels that would be one of the worst possible outcomes, as
autocrap usage is rampant enough already and there simply no technical
reason to optionally change the names (apart from funky compat issues
that might arise when doing so).

Me's against the change, but if we make it, we should make it
unconditionally, not as a configure option, IMO.

> Dnaiel

Fnord.

         --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  5:29               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04  5:48                 ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-10-04 11:14                 ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-10-08 18:14                 ` Martijn Dekker
  2 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-04 11:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

> On 04/10/2022 06:29 Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on.

That's a noble enterprise; however, with extreme opinions around ---
by no means exclusively and I don't think typical --- we're going to
have to come to some consensus on what consensus is.

> Use whatever terms the documentation of the function we call uses for these.
...
> Let the variable names be chosen by a configure option.

I'm not really sure what these mean in practice.  The best we've got
so far seems to be to use Aix terminology, which is therefore at least
semi-standard in some context and kind of blessed by IBM at some
possible remove, "controller", "worker".  Are you suggesting there might
be some sort of partial consensus around something like that?  If not, what?

pws

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  5:29               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04  5:48                 ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04 11:14                 ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-10-08 18:14                 ` Martijn Dekker
  2022-10-08 18:34                   ` zeurkous
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Martijn Dekker @ 2022-10-08 18:14 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

Op 04-10-22 om 07:29 schreef Daniel Shahaf:
> As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants
> unhappy.  Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on.

Since there is no consensus or precedent, I propose changing "slave" to 
"minion" and keeping "master", which is the less problematic of the two 
(e.g., as far as I know, no one is objecting to the default master 
branch on millions of git repos, or to the master recordings of music 
productions).

This would minimise potential confusion while replacing the emotive, 
historically charged word by a reference to Despicable Me, which would 
inject some much needed light-heartedness into this debate.

-- 
||	modernish -- harness the shell
||	https://github.com/modernish/modernish
||
||	KornShell lives!
||	https://github.com/ksh93/ksh

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-08 18:14                 ` Martijn Dekker
@ 2022-10-08 18:34                   ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 18:34 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Martijn Dekker, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 20:14:27 +0200, Martijn Dekker <martijn@inlv.org> wrote:
> Op 04-10-22 om 07:29 schreef Daniel Shahaf:
>> As producingoss explains, voting is going to leave half the participants
>> unhappy.  Let's instead try and find a solution we can consense on.
>
> Since there is no consensus or precedent, I propose changing "slave" to 
> "minion" and keeping "master", which is the less problematic of the two 
> (e.g., as far as I know, no one is objecting to the default master 
> branch on millions of git repos, or to the master recordings of music 
> productions).

How about "mook"?

Yet, not necessarily opposed. Is this a compromise we can all live w/:
replace "slave" but not "master"...?

> This would minimise potential confusion while replacing the emotive, 
> historically charged word

Until "minion" becomes an emotive, historically charged word, too.

(Not to shoot it down, but there is that risk...)

> by a reference to Despicable Me, which would 
> inject some much needed light-heartedness into this debate.

Light-headedness more like :S (But that's off-topic...)

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28 16:34           ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-09-28 16:42             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
  2022-10-03 14:25             ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-10-03 15:27             ` Wesley
  2022-10-03 15:45               ` zeurkous
  2022-10-04  7:05               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Wesley @ 2022-10-03 15:27 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote:

> I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major
> feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper"
> and "lower"?
>
> Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> sign of a consensus.

Do you need consensus on this change? I mean, if someone provided a
patch that changes master/slave to something else that makes sense
because they want to stay clear of those words, would it not be
accepted? The change is essentially a refactor and should pass all the
tests..

I'm not in favor of the change because there is not a technical reason
to solve. It is purely a policital (correctness) change. I don't see how
the change of master/slave in code is changing actual systematic racism
around the world or how it confronts former colonizing countries with
their often brutal past. The change itself should have minimal to no
impact on the code itself and should not present any problems to the
outside world.

All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it
doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick
in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it
fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue.
Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc.

Those are my 2 cents on this topic.

Cheers,
Wesley

--
Wesley Schwengle

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-03 15:27             ` Wesley
@ 2022-10-03 15:45               ` zeurkous
  2022-10-04  7:05               ` Daniel Shahaf
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-03 15:45 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wesley, zsh-workers

On Mon, 03 Oct 2022 15:27:49 +0000, Wesley <opndev@protonmail.com> wrote:
> All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it
> doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick
> in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it
> fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue.
> Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc.
>
> Those are my 2 cents on this topic.

To me, those "2 cents" appear to be the crucial point.

Me can't escape the distinct impression that the folks over at IBM are
trying to make their foolish policy into our (and others') problem.

Me doesn't think we should suffer that gladly.

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-03 15:27             ` Wesley
  2022-10-03 15:45               ` zeurkous
@ 2022-10-04  7:05               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04  7:28                 ` Daniel Shahaf
                                   ` (2 more replies)
  1 sibling, 3 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04  7:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wesley; +Cc: zsh-workers

Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000:
> 
> 
> On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> 
> > I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major
> > feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper"
> > and "lower"?
> >
> > Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> > at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> > from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> > sign of a consensus.
> 
> Do you need consensus on this change? I mean, if someone provided a
> patch that changes master/slave to something else that makes sense
> because they want to stay clear of those words, would it not be
> accepted?

pws posted such a patch upthread.

> The change is essentially a refactor and should pass all the tests..
> 

Any change has costs.  In this case, the change might shadow or unshadow
another symbol (pws checked that for the terms his patch uses), would be
one more manual step for any future «blame» or «log» run, would
necessitate a rebase for anyone who has local patches to zpty.c, and
would introduce a https://xkcd.com/927/ problem to anyone reading zsh's
pseudo-terminal module's C source file.

On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some
people to participate in the community.

On the third hand, the change would likely have social costs as well.
However, these considerations are largely not specific to zsh, so I
expect we could save ourselves a lot of time by finding a good write-up
of the pros and cons of such terminology changes.  

Speaking of write-ups, I wonder if producingoss would accept patches
adding discussion of such terminology changes.

Cheers,

Daniel

> I'm not in favor of the change because there is not a technical reason
> to solve. It is purely a policital (correctness) change. I don't see how
> the change of master/slave in code is changing actual systematic racism
> around the world or how it confronts former colonizing countries with
> their often brutal past. The change itself should have minimal to no
> impact on the code itself and should not present any problems to the
> outside world.
> 
> All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it
> doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick
> in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it
> fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue.
> Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc.
> 
> Those are my 2 cents on this topic.
> 
> Cheers,
> Wesley
> 
> --
> Wesley Schwengle
> 
> 
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  7:05               ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-10-04  7:28                 ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-05  0:00                   ` zeurkous
  2022-10-04 23:46                 ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08  7:54                 ` Felipe Contreras
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Daniel Shahaf @ 2022-10-04  7:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Wesley; +Cc: zsh-workers

Daniel Shahaf wrote on Tue, Oct 04, 2022 at 07:05:20 +0000:
> Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000:
> > 
> > 
> > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote:
> > 
> > > I'm guessing that of those who favour a change there are no major
> > > feelings in favour of any of the various alternative ways of saying "upper"
> > > and "lower"?
> > >
> > > Once that's established, perhaps someone could arrange for an online vote
> > > at one of the websites that do that?  Given no technical change results
> > > from any of this, opinion is all we've got, and there's evidently no
> > > sign of a consensus.
> > 
> > Do you need consensus on this change? I mean, if someone provided a
> > patch that changes master/slave to something else that makes sense
> > because they want to stay clear of those words, would it not be
> > accepted?
> 
> pws posted such a patch upthread.
> 
> > The change is essentially a refactor and should pass all the tests..
> > 
> 
> Any change has costs.  In this case, the change might shadow or unshadow
> another symbol (pws checked that for the terms his patch uses), would be
> one more manual step for any future «blame» or «log» run, would
> necessitate a rebase for anyone who has local patches to zpty.c, and
> would introduce a https://xkcd.com/927/ problem to anyone reading zsh's
> pseudo-terminal module's C source file.
> 
> On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some
> people to participate in the community.
> 
> On the third hand, the change would likely have social costs as well.
> However, these considerations are largely not specific to zsh, so I
> expect we could save ourselves a lot of time by finding a good write-up
> of the pros and cons of such terminology changes.  

Perhaps http://www.mit.edu/~jcb/tact.html?  It's not specific to Naming
Things, but it does touch on the question of how to interpret what other
people say.

In terms of jcb's thesis, the two positions on master/slave terminology
seem to be "tactlessness is a strict liability faux pas; if Bob opines
Alice spoke tactlessly, she should speak differently" and "Alice wasn't
being intentionally racist/speciesist/*, and Bob should follow Postel's
Law".

If I wrote the last paragraph well, I mispresented /both/ positions
equally badly :P

Daniel

> Speaking of write-ups, I wonder if producingoss would accept patches
> adding discussion of such terminology changes.
> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Daniel
> 
> > I'm not in favor of the change because there is not a technical reason
> > to solve. It is purely a policital (correctness) change. I don't see how
> > the change of master/slave in code is changing actual systematic racism
> > around the world or how it confronts former colonizing countries with
> > their often brutal past. The change itself should have minimal to no
> > impact on the code itself and should not present any problems to the
> > outside world.
> > 
> > All that said, I think IBM should be the driver of the change as it
> > doesn't comply with their "Words matter" policy. They just threw a stick
> > in a bee hive and now are watching the bees go crazy. If they want it
> > fixed, they should provide the patches to fix *their* political issue.
> > Unless someone within the zsh project really agrees with their view ofc.
> > 
> > Those are my 2 cents on this topic.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Wesley
> > 
> > --
> > Wesley Schwengle
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  7:28                 ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-10-05  0:00                   ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-05  0:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: zsh-workers, Wesley

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 07:28:06 +0000, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> In terms of jcb's thesis, the two positions on master/slave terminology
> seem to be "tactlessness is a strict liability faux pas; if Bob opines
> Alice spoke tactlessly, she should speak differently" and "Alice wasn't
> being intentionally racist/speciesist/*, and Bob should follow Postel's
> Law".
>
> If I wrote the last paragraph well, I mispresented /both/ positions
> equally badly :P

[disclaimer: didn't read "jcb's thesis"]

The real problem with an "it causes offense, so it must be wrong"
attitude is conflicting norms, an inherent property of the very
"cultural diversity" that companies like IBM claim to persue.

In simpler terms: it's very easy to say something that constitutes an
insult in $CULTURE[0], while constituting lavish praise in $CULTURE[1].

(The words "not bad" spring to mind.)

We can never get it right; or, rather: we can never please everybody, no
matter what terminology we use, *someone* will be offended.

That's why it's important that keep technical terminology technical.

Unless we're willing to outright make up words that no-one will be able
to intuitively learn or understand. That would be quite a regression,
wouldn't it?

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  7:05               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04  7:28                 ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-10-04 23:46                 ` zeurkous
  2022-10-05  0:28                   ` FU: " zeurkous
  2022-10-08  7:54                 ` Felipe Contreras
  2 siblings, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-04 23:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: zsh-workers, Wesley

On Tue, 4 Oct 2022 07:05:20 +0000, Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some
> people to participate in the community.
>
> On the third hand, the change would likely have social costs as well.

It's already having social costs. Look at the upheaval, on this very
list, that we're ourselves participants of.

In all, me suspects that the change, should we make it, will have the
following effects--

 0) Continuing churn, both in the code and on the mailing lists;
 1) The folks at IBM relievedly ticking boxes on forms submitted to
    management;
 2) No increase -attributable to the change- in contributions;
 3) An increase in certain people's level of disgust;
  and, finally:
 3) The folks at IBM (and quite possibly others), having taken note
    that we gave in to political pressure once, sooner or later try to
    make us do so again, quite possibly on an even less sensical
    subject.

        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* FU: RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04 23:46                 ` zeurkous
@ 2022-10-05  0:28                   ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-05  0:28 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: zsh-workers, Wesley

On Tue, 04 Oct 2022 23:46:34 +0000 (UTC), zeurkous@blaatscaahp.org wrote:
>  3) An increase in certain people's level of disgust;
>   and, finally:
>  3) The folks at IBM (and quite possibly others), having taken note
>     that we gave in to political pressure once, sooner or later try to
>     make us do so again, quite possibly on an even less sensical
>     subject.

Of course, the latter should've been 4). Silly me.
        --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-04  7:05               ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04  7:28                 ` Daniel Shahaf
  2022-10-04 23:46                 ` zeurkous
@ 2022-10-08  7:54                 ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-10-08 10:06                   ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 10:46                   ` Mikael Magnusson
  2 siblings, 2 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Felipe Contreras @ 2022-10-08  7:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Daniel Shahaf; +Cc: Wesley, zsh-workers

On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:05 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name> wrote:
> Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000:
> > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote:

> On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some
> people to participate in the community.

I have debated this point ad nauseam. It's not good enough to say this
change *might* benefit some hypothetical people: these people have to
be identified. A lawyer cannot go to court on behalf of some
hypothetical plaintiff: somebody has to say "this affects me".

This whole "master" debate boils down to this: not **one** person has
claimed they find the term personally offensive. All the people
against the term are proposing the change on behalf of hypothetical
people, not themselves. In other words: they are being offended by
proxy.

Do we have a single black person raising their hand and saying "I find
the term 'master' personally offensive"?

-- 
Felipe Contreras

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-08  7:54                 ` Felipe Contreras
@ 2022-10-08 10:06                   ` zeurkous
  2022-10-08 10:46                   ` Mikael Magnusson
  1 sibling, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:06 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Wesley, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 02:54:04 -0500, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> Do we have a single black person raising their hand and saying "I find
> the term 'master' personally offensive"?

Or any other person. Enslavement in general has not been limited to the
dark-skinned.

         --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-08  7:54                 ` Felipe Contreras
  2022-10-08 10:06                   ` zeurkous
@ 2022-10-08 10:46                   ` Mikael Magnusson
  2022-10-08 10:59                     ` zeurkous
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Mikael Magnusson @ 2022-10-08 10:46 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Felipe Contreras; +Cc: Daniel Shahaf, Wesley, zsh-workers

On 10/8/22, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:05 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
> wrote:
>> Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000:
>> > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some
>> people to participate in the community.
>
> I have debated this point ad nauseam.

You're certainly good at this part, maybe you should try debating by
making good points instead of trying to make your opponents sick.

> It's not good enough to say this change *might* benefit some hypothetical people[.]

The cost is 0, the gain is 0 or greater. Just do it, and someone might
be happier, nobody will be less happy.

-- 
Mikael Magnusson


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* RE: Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-08 10:46                   ` Mikael Magnusson
@ 2022-10-08 10:59                     ` zeurkous
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: zeurkous @ 2022-10-08 10:59 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Mikael Magnusson; +Cc: Daniel Shahaf, Wesley, zsh-workers

On Sat, 8 Oct 2022 12:46:19 +0200, Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 10/8/22, Felipe Contreras <felipe.contreras@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 4, 2022 at 2:05 AM Daniel Shahaf <d.s@daniel.shahaf.name>
>> wrote:
>>> Wesley wrote on Mon, Oct 03, 2022 at 15:27:49 +0000:
>>> > On 9/28/22 12:34, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, the change would allegedly make it easier for some
>>> people to participate in the community.
>>
>> I have debated this point ad nauseam.
>
> You're certainly good at this part, maybe you should try debating by
> making good points instead of trying to make your opponents sick.

In this case, you're describing your own behaviour more than you
describe Felipe's.

But you're probably oblivious to that.

>> It's not good enough to say this change *might* benefit some hypothetical people[.]
>
> The cost is 0, the gain is 0 or greater. Just do it, and someone might
> be happier, nobody will be less happy.

It seems like you're unable to appreciate other people's arguments.

Shame. 

         --zeurkous.

-- 
Friggin' Machines!


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
                             ` (4 preceding siblings ...)
  2022-09-28 16:34           ` Peter Stephenson
@ 2022-09-29  8:31           ` Axel Beckert
  5 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Axel Beckert @ 2022-09-29  8:31 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

Hi,

On Tue, Sep 27, 2022 at 08:54:46PM +0000, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
> -1 on the patch because I don't believe people who disagree with the
> change feel comfortable saying so publicly.

Full Ack.

Actually I see no reason to change _non-surfacing_ variables at all.

		Kind regards, Axel
-- 
PGP: 2FF9CD59612616B5      /~\  Plain Text Ribbon Campaign, http://arc.pasp.de/
Mail: abe@deuxchevaux.org  \ /  Say No to HTML in E-Mail and Usenet
Mail+Jabber: abe@noone.org  X
https://axel.beckert.ch/   / \  I love long mails: https://email.is-not-s.ms/


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27  8:44       ` Peter Stephenson
  2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
@ 2022-09-28 20:01         ` Eric Cook
  2022-09-29  8:05           ` Lawrence Velázquez
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Eric Cook @ 2022-09-28 20:01 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers

On 9/27/22 04:44, Peter Stephenson wrote:
>
>> On 27/09/2022 05:22 Bart Schaefer <schaefer@brasslantern.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022 at 8:18 PM Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary"
>>> AIX uses "controller" and "worker"
>>
>> Well, that's no fun.  It means there's no "term of art" we can adopt.
>> On the other hand, I guess, it means we don't have to worry about
>> confusing future programmers, because they'll already be confused.
>
> My only comment is that if we pick something unique and do the job
> properly this time, then any further update to fit in with standards
> is a 30 second automatic replacement.  So I don't think it's worth
> agonising over.
>
>> In this particular context I'd probably choose something like
>> superior/inferior ... neither subsidiary nor worker really fits what
>> that half of the PTY pair is doing, IMO.  They sound like words chosen
>> for a global search-and-replace over a codebase nobody was willing to
>> actually read.
>
> So e.g. zsuperior and zinferior would give us that ability (but you may
> well be right superior and inferior are good enough --- replacing
> master and slave didn't hit any clashes).
>
> pws
>


Indifference to the change in general

1) wasn't aware of the their existence until this thread.
    which did seem weird, like some automated search happened to find them.

2) not even zpty's documentation in zshmodules(1) refers to the existing terms.

3) as pointed out by Lawrence, the terms aren't even consistency used among operating systems
    so the feigned confusion of these internal variables already exists.

4) It's not similar to changing the default branch in zsh's vcs repo or
    changing listmaster@zsh.org, faqmaster@zsh.org in any way. if the change happens
    within a week it will be forgotten again, if even noticed.
    zpty isn't commonly used from what i can tell, i imagine people looking at its source code
    are even fewer.


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-28 20:01         ` Eric Cook
@ 2022-09-29  8:05           ` Lawrence Velázquez
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-09-29  8:05 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Wed, Sep 28, 2022, at 4:01 PM, Eric Cook wrote:
> 2) not even zpty's documentation in zshmodules(1) refers to the existing terms.

I thought so too, but it turns out there is a single instance.  I'm
actually surprised there aren't more.

> 4) It's not similar to changing the default branch in zsh's vcs repo or
>     changing listmaster@zsh.org, faqmaster@zsh.org in any way. if the 
> change happens
>     within a week it will be forgotten again, if even noticed.

Yup.  As far as I can tell -- and as Chen Xiao Ling noted in their
original message -- nothing we've been discussing is externally
visible (other than the aforementioned bit of documentation).

>     zpty isn't commonly used from what i can tell, i imagine people 
> looking at its source code
>     are even fewer.

If cosmic rays were to spontaneously apply Peter's patch, it would
take literally years for anyone to notice.

https://sourceforge.net/p/zsh/code/ci/master/log/?path=/Src/Modules/zpty.c

-- 
vq

^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-09-27  3:15   ` Lawrence Velázquez
  2022-09-27  4:22     ` Bart Schaefer
@ 2022-10-01  4:40     ` Lawrence Velázquez
  2022-10-03 15:24       ` Peter Stephenson
  1 sibling, 1 reply; 73+ messages in thread
From: Lawrence Velázquez @ 2022-10-01  4:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers, Bart Schaefer; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 11:15 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2022, at 2:20 PM, Bart Schaefer wrote:
>> but at the present time the Linux documentation for pty(7),
>> openpty(3), etc., still use the terms in question.  (I haven't
>> checked other platforms.)
>
> FreeBSD, NetBSD, and OpenBSD do as well.
>
> Illumos uses "manager" and "subsidiary" (https://illumos.org/man/4D/pty).
>
> AIX uses "controller" and "worker"
> (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=files-pty-special-file).

MacOS 12.6 uses "primary" and "replica".

Solaris 11.4 splits the difference with "controller" and "slave",
which strikes me as a lateral move at best.  A for effort, I suppose.

(No URLs, unfortunately, as I checked live systems.)

-- 
vq


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

* Re: The request of words matter updated
  2022-10-01  4:40     ` Lawrence Velázquez
@ 2022-10-03 15:24       ` Peter Stephenson
  0 siblings, 0 replies; 73+ messages in thread
From: Peter Stephenson @ 2022-10-03 15:24 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: zsh-workers; +Cc: Xiao Ling XL Chen, Kui K Zhang

> On 01/10/2022 05:40 Lawrence Velázquez <larryv@zsh.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 26, 2022, at 11:15 PM, Lawrence Velázquez wrote:
> > AIX uses "controller" and "worker"
> > (https://www.ibm.com/docs/en/aix/7.3?topic=files-pty-special-file).

I realise this is a week old now, but in the light of Bart's
points, using AIX terminology would be poetic justice, and it's
also satisfyingly similar to faculty / student (which, though
amusing, would be way too mystifying).

pws


^ permalink raw reply	[flat|nested] 73+ messages in thread

end of thread, other threads:[~2022-10-08 20:31 UTC | newest]

Thread overview: 73+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2022-09-19  6:52 The request of words matter updated Xiao Ling XL Chen
2022-09-19 18:20 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-09-27  3:15   ` Lawrence Velázquez
2022-09-27  4:22     ` Bart Schaefer
2022-09-27  8:44       ` Peter Stephenson
2022-09-27 20:54         ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-09-27 21:15           ` Clinton Bunch
2022-09-27 21:22             ` Clinton Bunch
2022-09-28 12:42               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-28 12:33             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-27 21:32           ` Mikael Magnusson
2022-09-28  6:17             ` Felipe Contreras
2022-09-28  6:30               ` Ellenor Bjornsdottir
2022-09-28 12:57                 ` zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-29  8:23                 ` Lawrence Velázquez
2022-09-28 12:47             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-29  8:35             ` Axel Beckert
2022-09-28  6:14           ` Felipe Contreras
2022-09-28 12:16             ` Clinton Bunch
2022-09-28 13:05               ` zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-29  8:49                 ` Axel Beckert
2022-09-29  4:08               ` On the "Words Matter" issue (was Re: The request of words matter updated; quotes deleted) Ellenor Bjornsdottir
2022-09-29 10:48                 ` De Zeurkous
2022-09-29 12:11                   ` FU: " zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-30  4:29                 ` Bart Schaefer
2022-09-30  5:14                   ` Bart Schaefer
2022-10-08  8:41                   ` Felipe Contreras
2022-10-08 10:12                     ` zeurkous
2022-10-08 10:12                     ` zeurkous
     [not found]                     ` <63414db7.050a0220.8ee33.4cc4SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2022-10-08 10:48                       ` Mikael Magnusson
2022-10-08 11:06                         ` zeurkous
     [not found]                         ` <63415a7a.500a0220.e6d5.1c01SMTPIN_ADDED_BROKEN@mx.google.com>
2022-10-08 11:20                           ` Mikael Magnusson
2022-10-08 11:59                             ` zeurkous
2022-10-08 16:48                     ` Bart Schaefer
2022-10-08 16:54                       ` zeurkous
2022-10-08 17:55                     ` Eric Cook
2022-10-08 18:09                       ` Eric Cook
2022-10-08 18:24                         ` Clinton Bunch
2022-10-08 18:43                           ` zeurkous
2022-10-08 18:25                         ` zeurkous
2022-10-08 18:11                       ` zeurkous
2022-10-08 19:58                       ` Bart Schaefer
2022-10-08 20:17                         ` zeurkous
2022-09-28 12:52             ` Re: The request of words matter updated zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-28 12:08           ` zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-09-28 16:34           ` Peter Stephenson
2022-09-28 16:42             ` zeurkous, zeurkous
2022-10-03 14:25             ` Peter Stephenson
2022-10-03 14:43               ` zeurkous
2022-10-03 23:24               ` Eric Cook
2022-10-04  0:45                 ` Wesley
2022-10-04  5:29               ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-10-04  5:48                 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-10-04 23:31                   ` zeurkous
2022-10-04 11:14                 ` Peter Stephenson
2022-10-08 18:14                 ` Martijn Dekker
2022-10-08 18:34                   ` zeurkous
2022-10-03 15:27             ` Wesley
2022-10-03 15:45               ` zeurkous
2022-10-04  7:05               ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-10-04  7:28                 ` Daniel Shahaf
2022-10-05  0:00                   ` zeurkous
2022-10-04 23:46                 ` zeurkous
2022-10-05  0:28                   ` FU: " zeurkous
2022-10-08  7:54                 ` Felipe Contreras
2022-10-08 10:06                   ` zeurkous
2022-10-08 10:46                   ` Mikael Magnusson
2022-10-08 10:59                     ` zeurkous
2022-09-29  8:31           ` Axel Beckert
2022-09-28 20:01         ` Eric Cook
2022-09-29  8:05           ` Lawrence Velázquez
2022-10-01  4:40     ` Lawrence Velázquez
2022-10-03 15:24       ` Peter Stephenson

Code repositories for project(s) associated with this public inbox

	https://git.vuxu.org/mirror/zsh/

This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).