This message is from the T13 list server.
I had a complaint about the terminology it IDF in 1999. Since that time I have changed most of my work to refer to aggressive/submissive devices/busses instead... --------------------------- Curtis E. Stevens 29 Dewey Irvine, Ca 92620 Home: (949) 552-4777 Cell: (949) 307-5050 E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] The face of a child can say it all, especially the mouth part of the face... ----- Original Message ----- From: "Hale Landis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 1:20 PM Subject: RE: [t13] Los Angeles County: Master/Slave term verboten > This message is from the T13 list server. > > > On 26 Nov 2003 14:13:09 -0700, Pat LaVarre wrote: > >This message is from the T13 list server. > >> > Master ... Slave ... California ... > >Did I miss the specific suggestion of specific, newly conventional, > >substitute jargon to mean Master and Slave? > > Master and Slave isn't used in the ATA-x or ATA/ATAPI-x standards. > They are very confusing names for what are really "device 0" and > "device 1". There is no master and there is no slave. If anything, in > a more general sense, the host is the master and the drives are both > slaves. > > From a purely technical standpoint, master and slave are just > stupid/bad/cofusing terminology. > > Hale > > > > *** Hale Landis *** www.ata-atapi.com *** > >
