End this thread now, please. [WAS Re: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

People,

Please end the thread at this point. Thank you.

As Andy Smith points out, I asked politely for this thread to cease
a while ago because it would degenerate to more heat than light.
I was wrong - it degenerated to futility.

Please remember the FAQ: remember the Code of Conduct and the ways
to keep this list useful.

In a similar way to dealing with spam: stop replying when there's 
nothing constructive to add. If you think people are trolling,
don't spend ages discussing it, necessarily, because that will
encourage the thread to continue. Move to the next topic.

Any and all of you may think that this is political correctness
gone mad / censorship or whatever. Changing terminology is 
inevitable over time: making meanings clear (while at the same
time avoiding being potentially offensive) is a useful purpose
in itself.

Nobody is forcing an attitude change on every individual in
the Debian community but the continued ask is for people
to be constructive in dealing with each other. That's my
purpose in asking for this thread to stop - now.

With every good wish

Andrew Cater
[For the Debian Community Team] 

Re: Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 2:59 PM Bret Busby  wrote:
>
> On 16/3/24 02:27, Van Snyder wrote:
> > On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 11:09 -0700, Will Mengarini wrote:
> >> Seriously, you humans have only another five billion Earth years until
> >> your sun engulfs your home planet, and you're spending time on *THIS*?!
> >
> > At the rate that sea plants and creatures are removing CO2 from the
> > atmosphere to combine it with calcium to make bones and armor,
> > eventually eternal limestone, we have only about eighteen million years
> > until Gaia commits suicide. Why should we continue to be complicit?
> >
> > Read Patrick Moore. The Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions on the
> > Survival of Life on Earth. Frontier Science for Public Policy, June 2016.

++. That whole thread was fecal matter. Best to let it die...

Jeff

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:52:17PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> I think the discussion might usefully stop at this point before it
> degenerates to more heat than light (as is the way of most discussions
> eventually - call it an application of mailing list entropy :) ) 

Three weeks on and some have made essentially the same statements
three times over by now.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Emanuel Berg]

Will Mengarini wrote:

>> With no intention of ever creating a 100% offensive-free
>> language, removing the worst offenders from the scene often
>> is enough.
>
> Words I find offensive include "authority" and "manager", so
> checking `apropos authori manager` I see we have a lot of
> important work to do.

You have a lot to do. If you consider those words the worst
offenders. And intend to do something about it.

> Seriously, you humans have only another five billion Earth
> years until your sun engulfs your home planet, and you're
> spending time on *THIS*?!

Relax, people also build shelves and get dead drunk at their
brothers' weddings.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Please terminate this faecal matter - the whole thread appears to be a troll.....Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Bret Busby]

On 16/3/24 02:27, Van Snyder wrote:

On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 11:09 -0700, Will Mengarini wrote:

Seriously, you humans have only another five billion Earth years until
your sun engulfs your home planet, and you're spending time on *THIS*?!


At the rate that sea plants and creatures are removing CO2 from the 
atmosphere to combine it with calcium to make bones and armor, 
eventually eternal limestone, we have only about eighteen million years 
until Gaia commits suicide. Why should we continue to be complicit?


Read Patrick Moore. The Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions on the 
Survival of Life on Earth. Frontier Science for Public Policy, June 2016.




--

Bret Busby
Armadale
Western Australia
(UTC+0800)
.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Van Snyder]

On Fri, 2024-03-15 at 11:09 -0700, Will Mengarini wrote:
> Seriously, you humans have only another five billion Earth years until
> your sun engulfs your home planet, and you're spending time on *THIS*?!

At the rate that sea plants and creatures are removing CO2 from the
atmosphere to combine it with calcium to make bones and armor,
eventually eternal limestone, we have only about eighteen million years
until Gaia commits suicide. Why should we continue to be complicit?

Read Patrick Moore. The Positive Impact of Human CO2 Emissions on the
Survival of Life on Earth. Frontier Science for Public Policy, June
2016.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Will Mengarini]

* Mariusz Gronczewski  [24-02/23=Fr 10:33 +0100]:
>>> It's entirely US political feel-good activism that
>>> doesn't change anything but wastes people's time.  Do
>>> you actually think pressing on brake pedal oppresses
>>> anybody?  Because it also has master and slave cylinders.
>>>
>>> All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time
>>> once they have to fix every script, tool and doc piece
>>> related to it, for absolutely no benefit aside from making
>>> some Twitter activist happy "they did something".  It would
>>> *literally* break every single script that [...]

* Alain D D Williams  [24-02/23=Fr 10:07 +]:
>> It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers.  Should
>> we scour our systems looking for similar issues in other
>> languages?  Then in, say, 20 years time when different words
>> will then be considered offensive, by some, do this all again?

* Emanuel Berg  [24-03/15=Fr 01:42 +0100]:
> Remember, there are A LOT of words and expressions
> we don't use anymore, and that's good, as
> they are offensive and disrespectful. [...]
>
> [...]
>
> Maybe one should just focus on a few words and expressions that
> are clearly offensive, and remove them from schools, universities,
> public service TV, all official state-related communication, etc.
>
> With no intention of ever creating a 100% offensive-free language,
> removing the worst offenders from the scene often is enough.

Words I find offensive include "authority" and "manager", so checking
`apropos authori manager` I see we have a lot of important work to do.

We also need to do something about book titles like "Mastering $Foo".

Seriously, you humans have only another five billion Earth years until
your sun engulfs your home planet, and you're spending time on *THIS*?!

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Emanuel Berg]

Mike Castle wrote:

> Was that explicitly stated anywhere? Or is the lack of any
> type of explicit "I'm willing to help drive this" statements
> leading to that conclusion?

Relax, everyone does something somewhere. But it would be
a boring world if they were only allowed to talk about that.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Emanuel Berg]

Alain D D Williams wrote:

> That is the big difference. Not use words *currently* deemed
> offensive in *new* publications (books, newspaper articles,
> ...) - this is not hard to do.

Indeed, and that is what you should focus on. The past is the
past anyway.

> What we are faced with is something very different: a call
> to locate and modify use in programs that might have been
> written a long time ago. The effort needed to do this is
> large and will doubtless cause failures in systems that have
> been working well for years.

I must admit the whole concept of source code being offensive
is a bit bizarre to me. For anyone to really change that it in
a way that makes sense it must be a really offensive word and
a general understanding that people reading and writing the
code really reacts negatively to it. Because in my experience,
people who do this kind of politics aren't typically
programmers, even.

But I may be wrong and from a technical perspective, it is
possible to change source, obviously.

> It is not just a matter of modifying Debian (+ RedHat + ...)
> sources but the sources on private systems.

I think it is a bad idea to go for a clean sweep. That either
don't work or end up like the Khmer Rouge. It is enough to
remove the most offensive words and expressions, whatever they
are, from the most public platforms.

> We seem to be told that this must be done by those who will
> not be doing the work.

Ah, it is okay for people to have opinions and voice them
without doing stuff. But sometimes such people somehow get
into positions of authority and, worst case scenario, force
people who have been doing stuff for ages out of
their projects. That's horrible but such instances should not
be blamed on the general "opinions but no work" personality,
who is actually quite harmless.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 09:01:30AM -0700, Mike Castle wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:49 AM Alain D D Williams  wrote:
> > We seem to be told that this must be done by those who will not be doing the
> > work.
> 
> Was that explicitly stated anywhere?  Or is the lack of any type of
> explicit "I'm willing to help drive this" statements leading to that
> conclusion?

My humble take: just a troll in search of food.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mike Castle]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 1:49 AM Alain D D Williams  wrote:
> We seem to be told that this must be done by those who will not be doing the
> work.

Was that explicitly stated anywhere?  Or is the lack of any type of
explicit "I'm willing to help drive this" statements leading to that
conclusion?

mrc

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Alain D D Williams]

On Fri, Mar 15, 2024 at 01:42:25AM +0100, Emanuel Berg wrote:
> Mike Castle wrote:
> 
> >> It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers.
> >> Should we scour our systems looking for similar issues in
> >> other languages? Then in, say, 20 years time when different
> >> words will then be considered offensive, by some, do this
> >> all again?
> >
> > Yes.
> 
> Remember, there are A LOT of words and expressions we don't
> use anymore, and that's good, as they are offensive and
> disrespectful. But once they were perfectly normal. Still, one
> by one, they have disappeared from active use.

That is the big difference. Not use words *currently* deemed offensive in *new*
publications (books, newspaper articles, ...) - this is not hard to do. What we
are faced with is something very different: a call to locate and modify use in
programs that might have been written a long time ago. The effort needed to do
this is large and will doubtless cause failures in systems that have been
working well for years.

It is not just a matter of modifying Debian (+ RedHat + ...) sources but the
sources on private systems.

We seem to be told that this must be done by those who will not be doing the
work.

-- 
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT 
Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256  https://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: 
https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html
#include 

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Emanuel Berg]

Mike Castle wrote:

>> It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers.
>> Should we scour our systems looking for similar issues in
>> other languages? Then in, say, 20 years time when different
>> words will then be considered offensive, by some, do this
>> all again?
>
> Yes.

Remember, there are A LOT of words and expressions we don't
use anymore, and that's good, as they are offensive and
disrespectful. But once they were perfectly normal. Still, one
by one, they have disappeared from active use.

What's to say we are right now, just because _we_ happen to
live right now, suddenly done with that process?

If it had to be done in the past, why not right now - and in
the future as well?

Now how to actually do it is another thing.

Maybe one should just focus on a few words and expressions
that are clearly offensive, and remove them from schools,
universities, public service TV, all official
state-related communication, etc.

With no intention of ever creating a 100% offensive-free
language, removing the worst offenders from the scene often
is enough.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mike Castle]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 2:07 AM Alain D D Williams  wrote:
> It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers. Should we scour our
> systems looking for similar issues in other languages ? Then in, say, 20 years
> time when different words will then be considered offensive, by some, do this
> all again ?

Yes.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Emanuel Berg]

Alain D D Williams wrote:

> However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly
> more accurately how some people think. They see
> a word/phrase that they have decided that they "own" or
> somehow relates to them [...]

I am not black so I have no idea how black people consider
everything negative in language that is black. If indeed most
of them have no strong feelings about it it may be a waste of
time trying to change such expressions.

If they do care about it one could try to reduce such use from
formal and official language, especially when it really hasn't
anything to do with the color black - like blacklist into
blocklist, and other such examples.

Maybe in fantasy novels one would still be allowed to have
evil wizards all dressed in black, doing powerful incantations
of black magic?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Cease and desist, please [WAS Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP]

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

[Also copied to commun...@debian.org]

t's time to kill this thread - nothing useful is being said at this point.

At its best, this list is useful for helping people and for providing 
information.

It's also a window on the world of Debian and how Debian contributors, regulars 
on the list
(and the odd single poster) contribute to the wider perception of Debian and 
what we collectively do. 

Help uphold a good reputation for all of us.

Help maintain the usefulness of this list by knowing when to stop hitting the 
Enter key
and when to put the keyboard down (and go and do something else for a few 
minutes) rather
than continuing to reply to a mailing list thread.

No-one has to contribute to every contentious point and there is consideration 
in knowing when
to stop and avoid more effort to make your own opinions heard.

Please also consider the Debian Code of Conduct and the requirement to be 
constructive or face sanctions.

With thanks for your consideration in this.

Andrew Cater
(amaca...@debian.org)

For the Debian Community Team

Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-25, o godz. 11:22:50
Alain D D Williams  napisał(a):

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith 
> > wrote:  
> > >
> > > [...]
> > > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades
> > > walking back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that
> > > being liberal in what our software accepts is untenable in the
> > > face of a hostile Internet.  
> > 
> > ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the
> > 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today.
> > 
> > Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to
> > reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly
> > perform the processing or transformation.  
> 
> There is a difference between not doing validation (eg a field being
> numeric) and flexibility (eg a line length being 100 bytes which is
> more than the specified 80 bytes). This is what Postel is talking
> about.

...and how you would even handle it ? The DB field is 80 characters, do
you want to just truncate it ? Or oversize the DB? what if DB field
have that 100 bytes but someone sends 101? 

If the numeric field can be hex,dec,oct number or a string representing
one of those (octal representation in particular is satan that claimed
bugs in many projects), together with locale-specific dots dashes and
commas separating thousands, that's plenty of code that can go wrong vs
"okay this number is in range, job done"

Yes of course there is a diffence between validation and flexibility but
flexibility of protocol should only extend to backward compability, where 
it doesn't cost you too much, and not indefinitely. Not to be flexible
just so someone can half-ass the implementation and still have it
"work" because other servers cover up for the errors with being
"flexible".

There is a case for leeway in user-facing stuff - nobody wants to hunt
for trailing whitespace in their forms just because they dared to
copy-paste - but protocols had way too much leeway *because* most
implementations ignored the second part, "be conservative in what you
do" and frankly sent fucked up stuff that your implementation still 
needed to work with if it was a common open protocol.

e-mail being particular example, oh the hundreds of problems with "our" 
mail servers that could be summed up by "your implementation pisses on
RFC and that's why our mail server doesn't get your mail"... 



-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-25, o godz. 07:29:32
 napisał(a):

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:05:26PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> > May I interject a different perspective?
> > what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many,
> > that some see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful?
> > Or teaching those people how to free themselves from being
> > controlled by those words?  
> 
> Not using the words doesn't remove the injustice. I'm not that naïve.
> It's just a question of politeness.
> 
> As an example: I left the Christian religion long time ago. If I
> visit a church (to admire its architecture, for example), I behave
> with a modicum of respect and restrain myself of farting aloud. If I
> visit a mosque (I'm not a Muslim) I take off my shoes.

Great point! I do that too, nor would I flaunt my (non)-religious
beliefs to religious people without being asked.

Now did you know that by you not being a Muslim your entire existence
offends that religion ?

So, will you remove or convert yourself, or will you deem that demand
to be unreasonable ? I'm gonna assume the latter.

So would you acquiesce that shunning certain words (nigger,faggot etc.)
that are used 99% as an insults is reasonable, while leaving ones that
have multiple uses (master, slave, git, gimp) and not being used in
modern speech as insults untouched is a reasonable approach ?

-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-25, o godz. 00:27:41
Marco Moock  napisał(a):

> Am Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:42:39 +0100
> schrieb Emanuel Berg :
> 
> > I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
> > with everything negative that is black in language.  
> 
> I can't understand why people draw that association.
> Black as a color is different from the skin and different from illegal
> activities on black markets.
> 

If you decide that there is a problem first, then try to find
"evidence" of it existing you will always find it. Even if "evidence"
will be "someone somewhere in earth of billion people used the term in
racist way once", the fact it normally is not used like that doesn't
matter, a virtual offended minority in their head must've been offended
by that so they by proxy are too and need to fight it.

All so they can tell themselves that they "made a difference" and "made
a world a better place", without doing anything actually meaningful,
while typing on their device made by wage-slavery in some asian country.

But we're supposed to believe them on their word that there is some
theoretical group former slaves that somehow made career as Linux
admin, had to set up bonding and pick the slave interfaces bonded to
it and got PTSD in the process.

And when you ask them which real people are exactly offended by it
and how it is even supposed to help you get "guys let's not get
political, just do exactly what I said you should do, I'm  the expert
here, you peons just abide by my wishes" or "I won't respond to
argument because you must be racist, and by racist I define "doesn't
agree with me"".

I don't like religious proverbs but the road to hell is truly paved
with good intentions.

Also I am a member of minority group called West Slavs, which the term
slave came from so I hereby grant the Linux kernel unlimited permission
to use that term indefinitely (that was a joke, I don't think any
group should have any power in defining stuff like that).

-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

[Alain D D Williams]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 07:44:44PM -0500, Jeffrey Walton wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith  wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking
> > back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal
> > in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile
> > Internet.
> 
> ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the
> 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today.
> 
> Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to
> reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly perform
> the processing or transformation.

There is a difference between not doing validation (eg a field being numeric)
and flexibility (eg a line length being 100 bytes which is more than the
specified 80 bytes). This is what Postel is talking about.

Otherwise I completely agree: validate, validate, validate - if I accept your
bad data then it becomes my problem, if I reject it then you have to fix it.
Unfortunately people will complain if you do this "everyone accepts the data",
to which I reply "please tell me exactly what it means" - which should shut
them up.

-- 
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT 
Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256  https://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: 
https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html
#include 

Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-24, o godz. 19:44:44
Jeffrey Walton  napisał(a):

> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith 
> wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> > Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking
> > back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal
> > in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile
> > Internet.  
> 
> ++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the
> 1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today.
> 

Postel's law works on user-interfaced data far better than protocols. 

> Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to
> reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly perform
> the processing or transformation.

On flip-side it's terrible idea to do that on user-entered data. Yes,
security wise it's a great idea, but usability-wise it generates
annoyances at every step. Like, if say user enters a data (say a token
from mail 2FA) with extra spaces, the "accept only the perfectly good
data" would prompt to tell them to sod off and try again", instead of
just cutting the whitespaces out and checking the token.

Similarly if the site requires bank account number most people don't
type it, they copy it is not accepting the long string of numbers just
because it had some whitespaces added for better presentation just
annoys the users. And that pre-processing often (if it is a website)
can be done client side so server code can keep its tight and secure
processing without compromising.


-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Geert Stappers]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 10:22:09AM +0100, to...@tuxteam.de wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> I think I'm out of it. *Plonk*
> -- 
> t


For keeping that promise would it be better to use "Reply-To-List".

And in other cases is it also better to use "Reply-To-List".


Groeten
Geert Stappers


P.S.
The better e-mail client has 3 reply buttons:
- Reply
- Reply-To-All
- Reply-To-List
-- 
Silence is hard to parse

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 06:30:35PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 2/25/24, to...@tuxteam.de  wrote:
> > On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >
> > [...]
> >
> >> The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to
> >> make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and
> >> healing.
> >
> > To make sure the "majority" stays majority for all so ever: white,
> > male, Western Europe or US, English speaking?
> 
> Ha! Had to pull the race card now huh? Figured that's where the sjw
> wokesters would go. When all else fails, cry "racism".

[...]

I think I'm out of it. *Plonk*
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 2/25/24, to...@tuxteam.de  wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:05:26PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote:
>> May I interject a different perspective?
>> what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, that
>> some
>> see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful?  Or teaching
>> those
>> people how to free themselves from being controlled by those words?
>
> Not using the words doesn't remove the injustice.

Words do not create injustice. You are mistaken.

Broken and damaged individuals perceive injustice.

> I'm not that naïve. It's just a question of politeness.

Actually I wish you were not so naive as to actually believe the
dichomatic trollop you are holding to.

> As an example: I left the Christian religion long time ago. If I visit a
> church (to admire its architecture, for example), I behave with a modicum
> of respect and restrain myself of farting aloud. If I visit a mosque (I'm
> not a Muslim) I take off my shoes.
>
> Because I know there are people in there who might well be offended by some
> behaviour.
>
> It's that easy.

No it's not that easy. What you say here ("It's that easy") is simply not true.

Only in very limited and strictly controlled environments can you get
away with such superficiality. The West placades docility of mind.
This does not mean that a docile mind is worthy of any esteem.

>> Yes, your goals may be honorable to be sure, but in the end do not the
>> words
>> still win if the control remains?
>
> Removing the injustice is a much longer process, and it's important to
> put a lot of work in it. The above is just a friendly acknowledgement
> "yes, I see you". Just politeness. Not more.

No, you missed their point. Either intentionally (in which case you
would rightly be held as manipulative) or unintentionally (in which
case you could rightly be held as docile of mind).

> After all, I try to be polite to you too (I might fail at that, dunno).

"Look, at least I tried to be polite, so please ignore the fact I've
ignored what you said and allow my unspoken assumptions to prevail"

It is really, really dull at this stage.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 2/25/24, to...@tuxteam.de  wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>> The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to
>> make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and
>> healing.
>
> To make sure the "majority" stays majority for all so ever: white,
> male, Western Europe or US, English speaking?

Ha! Had to pull the race card now huh? Figured that's where the sjw
wokesters would go. When all else fails, cry "racism".

> For better or worse (IMO for better!) demography of our geek
> communities is slowly changing. This brings about some friction.
> I'm all for facilitating this process: this involves questioning
> my preconceptions.
>
> As a scientist, I'm used to do that, anyway.

A "scientist" you say.

"Oh my, what powerful 'racist' arguments you have there. Oh well, you
win then hey?"

It's all black and white dichotomies from here. The racist "whites" vs
the oppressed "blacks".

Such science! Such awesome power!

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 06:05:26PM -0500, Karen Lewellen wrote:
> May I interject a different perspective?
> what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, that some
> see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful?  Or teaching those
> people how to free themselves from being controlled by those words?

Not using the words doesn't remove the injustice. I'm not that naïve. It's
just a question of politeness.

As an example: I left the Christian religion long time ago. If I visit a
church (to admire its architecture, for example), I behave with a modicum
of respect and restrain myself of farting aloud. If I visit a mosque (I'm
not a Muslim) I take off my shoes.

Because I know there are people in there who might well be offended by some
behaviour.

It's that easy.

> Yes, your goals may be honorable to be sure, but in the end do not the words
> still win if the control remains?

Removing the injustice is a much longer process, and it's important to
put a lot of work in it. The above is just a friendly acknowledgement
"yes, I see you". Just politeness. Not more.

After all, I try to be polite to you too (I might fail at that, dunno).

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:14:44AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:

[...]

> The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to
> make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and
> healing.

To make sure the "majority" stays majority for all so ever: white,
male, Western Europe or US, English speaking?

For better or worse (IMO for better!) demography of our geek
communities is slowly changing. This brings about some friction.
I'm all for facilitating this process: this involves questioning
my preconceptions.

As a scientist, I'm used to do that, anyway.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

[Nicholas Geovanis]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024, 6:37 PM Andy Smith  wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +, Alain D D Williams wrote:
> > I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to
> human
> > interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking
>
> 
> I'm not saying DON'T give people the benefit of the doubt, but just
> always be aware that when you do there will be people who take
> advantage of that.
>
> Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking
> back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal
> in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile
> Internet.
>

Quoting Paul Vixie 30 years ago at the Usenix technical conference (author
of various RFCs: DHCP, NNTP):

"Its important to remember that the internet escaped from the lab long
before we could put it into anything like production form. It's equally
important that our masters do not learn that".

Thanks,
> Andy
>
> --
> https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting
>
>

Re: Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 7:37 PM Andy Smith  wrote:
>
> [...]
> Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking
> back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal
> in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile
> Internet.

++. Postel's Law is a disaster nowadays. It was fine back in the
1980's, but it is dangerous in the toxic environments of today.

Here's what we teach our developers: Look for any reason you can to
reject the data. If you can't find a reason, then begrudgingly perform
the processing or transformation.

Jeff

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 2/25/24, Marco Moock  wrote:
> Am Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:42:39 +0100
> schrieb Emanuel Berg :
>
>> I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
>> with everything negative that is black in language.
>
> I can't understand why people draw that association.
> Black as a color is different from the skin and different from illegal
> activities on black markets.

Absolutely.

Those who are engaging in the superficial side of cultural
manipulation, superficial "social warriors" when they fail to
demonstrate empathy to all sides, all people, have been consciously or
unconsciously exploited, or are active consciously, in this type of
linguistic and cultural manipulation.

https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/culture-2018-0023/html?lang=en

This process of societal manipulation, under the guise and pretence of
"social justice" has been underway with intention for decades, and
there is a sort of penultimate fruition of this intention which we now
see manifesting in all online communities as well as in the real
world.

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00131857.2021.1926982

There are two sides, in fact many sides and viewpoints which can be
considered valid, and from the point of view of some, "Cultural
Marxism" does not even exist and is simply a "far right" meme or even
an "anti semitic conspiracy theory".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Marxism_conspiracy_theory

Sun Tzu's The Art of War may be a useful foundation for comprehending
the tactics underlying some of the things we read on Wikipedia and
elsewhere... intention is witnessed ultimately in the effects of the
action, not in what is said. The mind is the great trickster. Evil
thrives only in darkness as wile thrives in convoluted linguistic
tactics.

Be not deceived and bring as much light as possible, that ALL sides
may be heard and beheld for their truth, both exposit and clandestine.

For those who got this far, a gem to possibly assist you in unpacking
that which you may have not witnessed before:

https://ijcrsee.com/index.php/ijcrsee/article/view/13/570
"... A lie and manipulation are opposed to different types of truth: a
lie stands up against “semantic truth”; manipulation opposes
“pragmatic truth”.
Manipulation is realized when the listener cannot see the speaker’s
covered intentions behind what is actually being said. As one of the
key parameters of manipulative utterance is specific intentionality,
in order to discriminate manipulation, one has to analyze such
parameters as aim of verbal communication, communicative intention,
reason, and motive. Manipulation is pragmatic aspect that achieves its
goals without evident detection of communicative intention: the
speaker wittingly chooses such form of utterance that lacks direct
signals of his intentional condition..."

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Marco Moock]

Am Sat, 24 Feb 2024 14:42:39 +0100
schrieb Emanuel Berg :

> I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
> with everything negative that is black in language.

I can't understand why people draw that association.
Black as a color is different from the skin and different from illegal
activities on black markets.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Karen Lewellen]

May I interject a different perspective?
what brings greater freedom, asking that words be changed by many, that 
some see, no matter how justified from their view as harmful?  Or teaching 
those  people how to free themselves from being controlled by those words?
Yes, your goals may be honorable to be sure, but in the end do not the 
words still win if the control remains?

Just a thought,
Karen



On Sun, 25 Feb 2024, Zenaan Harkness wrote:


On 2/23/24, Arno Lehmann  wrote:

On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:

On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:

Hello!

I know this is a loaded topic...

...

There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
activism


Statement one above proven.


Missing the wood for the trees.

Acknowledging that part of your interlocutor's statement which does
have substance, is a more useful foundation for actual communication.
Your response to Ralph might be witty, but it is without empathy.


All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have
to fix


If there's a single person in the world who feels existing terminology
to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.


You are free to do all such consideration you feel appropriate. You
have failed to name the objection, which afaict is the asking of "tens
of thousands" of people in our community to spend their precious Soul
attention on the real psychological and emotional needs of a handful
of damaged individuals in genuine need of healing.


If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.


Your good intentions are applauded.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least when you put
your imposition on others to "you must act with the good intentions
which I do".


If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments
such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong ones.


If someone is genuinely in need of healing, then the Debian mailing
lists is not an appropriate place for professional help.

If someone is not in need of professional help and genuine healing,
the demand that the community put the attention of thousands (or in
fact 10s of thousands or more) on the delicate emotions of a tiny
number of vocal individuals, is an abhorrent demand, virtually be
definition.


As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.


It is good that you have personally found a way to feel good about
your activism. You are applauded, certainly by those who are aware of
the benefit you may have brought to their delicate and fragile
emotions.

And I say that with no sarcasm at all. It is good that people in this
world care about one another. I have no objection that whatsoever, and
in fact when one is lifted a little, I hold that this lifting has a
subtle benefit for us all.


Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably also
a loaded topic.


Every loaded topic, can be unloaded. Unloading a loaded topic simply
requires sufficient linguistic capacity. Keep at your efforts and you
should find success in this regard. I consider such pursuit a useful
endeavor.

I think we can't disappear ifenslave documentation just yet (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 10:52:17PM +, Andrew M.A. Cater wrote:
> If anyone wants to remove the references to ifenslave and
> substitute others, that's entirely fine.

I really don't think in this specific case it would be a good idea
to remove all mention of ifenslave because:

- The current Ethernet bonding support in ifupdown requires
  ifenslave. If you don't install ifenslave, you can't set up a bond
  interface from /etc/network/interfaces except by avoiding the
  actual syntax there for that purpose and doing it with direct
  commands executed by *-up/down hooks.

- Even if it was possible, vast majority of people using bonded
  Ethernets have it done with ifenslave, so it needs at least a
  mention in order that people can understand what they already have.

- ifenslave is a tiny part of the issue. It's fundamental to the
  bonding driver and same terminology will be seen in its
  configuration and in its status output in /proc/net/bonding, e.g:

$ cat /proc/net/bonding/bond0 
Ethernet Channel Bonding Driver: v5.10.0-0.deb10.16-amd64

Bonding Mode: fault-tolerance (active-backup)
Primary Slave: None
Currently Active Slave: eth1
MII Status: up
MII Polling Interval (ms): 100
Up Delay (ms): 0
Down Delay (ms): 0
Peer Notification Delay (ms): 0

Slave Interface: eth0
MII Status: up
Speed: 1000 Mbps
Duplex: full
Link Failure Count: 1
Permanent HW addr: 00:25:90:5c:f7:ea
Slave queue ID: 0

Slave Interface: eth1
MII Status: up
Speed: 1000 Mbps
Duplex: full
Link Failure Count: 1
Permanent HW addr: 00:25:90:5c:f7:eb
Slave queue ID: 0

As I've already mentioned though, if anyone finds time to
investigate the teaming driver then it would be really nice to see a
wiki article on that and perhaps a link to that from the existing
one on bonded Ethernets.

So in summary, I don't think ifenslave can actually be purged from
history, but some useful steps could possibly be taken towards its
deprecation - first involving actually documenting the new thing.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andrew M.A. Cater]

[On list: copied to commun...@debian.org]

Hi people,

As you might have expected: this subject is drifting off-topic and becoming
a little more personal.

In answer to the first question: there's a reference to a wiki page.
It's a wiki page: it can be edited by (almost) anyone. If anyone wants
to remove the references to ifenslave and substitute others, that's
entirely fine.

As regards personal back and forth argument: can I remind _everyone_ on
the list, without exception, of the need to stay within the Debian
Code of Conduct (and the mailing list Code of Conduct).

Please try to be considerate, helpful and ,above all, constructive. It
makes a difference when it comes to dealing with anything remotely
contentious.

I think the discussion might usefully stop at this point before it
degenerates to more heat than light (as is the way of most discussions
eventually - call it an application of mailing list entropy :) ) 

With thanks for your consideration - and with every good wish, as ever,

Andy Cater
[For the Community Team]

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Sun, Feb 25, 2024 at 09:17:15AM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> On 2/24/24, Andy Smith  wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 01:35:14PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> >> I wrote:
> >> > You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made
> >> > clear that the work was already done.
> >>
> >> Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who
> >> are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language,
> >> there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not
> >> decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering
> >> words.
> >>
> >> If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to
> >> that healing.
> >
> > I did wonder how long it would take for someone to go from, "it's
> > terrible that you activists are MAKING someone do this POINTLESS
> > non-technical work!" to "no one should use this thing someone did in
> > their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical
> > reasons!"
> 
> Except "no one should use this thing someone did in their own free
> time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical reasons!" is not
> what I said.

Oh, okay. So what is it exactly about what the developers of the
teaming driver have done with regard to not using so-called
"non-inclusive terminology" that you consider to have been a
mistake?

I thought that was the exact topic of conversation here, and the
above was you saying that it shouldn't be removed but should in fact
be left there as some sort of "shock treatment" but apparently I
have misunderstood you.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 2/23/24, Arno Lehmann  wrote:
> On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
>> On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
>>> Hello!
>>>
>>> I know this is a loaded topic...
> ...
>> There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
>> activism
>
> Statement one above proven.

Missing the wood for the trees.

Acknowledging that part of your interlocutor's statement which does
have substance, is a more useful foundation for actual communication.
Your response to Ralph might be witty, but it is without empathy.

>> All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have
>> to fix
>
> If there's a single person in the world who feels existing terminology
> to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.

You are free to do all such consideration you feel appropriate. You
have failed to name the objection, which afaict is the asking of "tens
of thousands" of people in our community to spend their precious Soul
attention on the real psychological and emotional needs of a handful
of damaged individuals in genuine need of healing.

> If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.

Your good intentions are applauded.

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, at least when you put
your imposition on others to "you must act with the good intentions
which I do".

> If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments
> such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong ones.

If someone is genuinely in need of healing, then the Debian mailing
lists is not an appropriate place for professional help.

If someone is not in need of professional help and genuine healing,
the demand that the community put the attention of thousands (or in
fact 10s of thousands or more) on the delicate emotions of a tiny
number of vocal individuals, is an abhorrent demand, virtually be
definition.

> As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.

It is good that you have personally found a way to feel good about
your activism. You are applauded, certainly by those who are aware of
the benefit you may have brought to their delicate and fragile
emotions.

And I say that with no sarcasm at all. It is good that people in this
world care about one another. I have no objection that whatsoever, and
in fact when one is lifted a little, I hold that this lifting has a
subtle benefit for us all.

> Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably also
> a loaded topic.

Every loaded topic, can be unloaded. Unloading a loaded topic simply
requires sufficient linguistic capacity. Keep at your efforts and you
should find success in this regard. I consider such pursuit a useful
endeavor.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 2/24/24, Andy Smith  wrote:
> Hi,
>
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 01:35:14PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
>> I wrote:
>> > You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made
>> > clear that the work was already done.
>>
>> Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who
>> are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language,
>> there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not
>> decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering
>> words.
>>
>> If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to
>> that healing.
>
> I did wonder how long it would take for someone to go from, "it's
> terrible that you activists are MAKING someone do this POINTLESS
> non-technical work!" to "no one should use this thing someone did in
> their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical
> reasons!"

Except "no one should use this thing someone did in their own free
time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical reasons!" is not
what I said.

I suggest you reduce your occurrence of putting words in other
people's mouths, which they did not say. Some folks consider that
rude. Others might claim (validly) that you have a manipulative
agenda.

> Meanwhile I'd just appreciate hearing from actual users of it, since
> I might be one, one day.

You are welcome to invite user feedback.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Zenaan Harkness]

On 2/25/24, to...@tuxteam.de  wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +, Alain D D Williams wrote:
>> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 09:03:45AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
>>
>> > > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such
>> > > words.
>> >
>> > The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin
>> > of the *meaning* of the word(s).
>>
>> +1
>>
>> However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly more
>> accurately how
>> some people think. They see a word/phrase that they have decided that
>> they
>> "own" [...]
>
> It's not just "they", that's the point. It's us all.

The "problem" is asking the majority (10s of thousands of people) to
make efforts to help 1 or 2 heal in their journey's of pain and
healing.

>> I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to
>> human
>> interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking
>
> Actually, Postel's Law is a very appropriate metaphor. It has two sides.
> My side is here: if I have reasons to suspect something might offend my
> interlocutor, I'll try to avoid it -- unless there's a stronger reason
> not to.

That's considerate human behaviour.

Some humans are in so much pain and need so much healing, that their
demands for our behaviour and or language change, becomes an
oppression against us.

SOMEtimes non experts are able to facilitate the healing of those who
need healing.

Other times, we are presuming expert ability which is very unwise -
for example if a particular individual is so damaged and in need of
emotional support and healing, that reading a single word or phrase is
likely to lead them to suicide, then that person seriously needs
professional help and it is very unwise to let them loose in our
general community where such words and phrases are readily come
across.

Children bond with their mothers and fathers in normal wholesome
families. Someone who is so damaged that they are seriously triggered
by the word bonding, needs professional assistance.

The Debian mailing lists are not, at least as far as I understand it,
medical (or psychological) institutions, and it is unwise (I would
suggest "in the extreme") for us to pretend otherwise.

Postel's Law (Was Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP)

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +, Alain D D Williams wrote:
> I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to human
> interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking

The basic assumption that people mean well is how con artists and
high pressure sales tactics have operated since the dawn of
communication ("Oh, you can't afford the vacuum cleaner? I really
shouldn't, but let me just call my boss because I really want to
help you…").

Although at least with con artists there is the other thing of
"can't con an honest John".

I'm not saying DON'T give people the benefit of the doubt, but just
always be aware that when you do there will be people who take
advantage of that.

Turning back more to protocol design, we have spent decades walking
back Postel's Law as we find more and more ways that being liberal
in what our software accepts is untenable in the face of a hostile
Internet.


Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-24, o godz. 14:42:39
Emanuel Berg  napisał(a):

> jeremy ardley wrote:
> 
> >> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block
> >> market" work just fine?  
> >
> > The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45.
> > It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in
> > the dark, not visible,  not official.  
> 
> I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
> with everything negative that is black in language.

They are not associated with everything negative. The people that want
those changed just assume that people think that. I assure you normal
people don't see the word "black" attached to something and
automatically think it means something about the people. 

People wanting to change common unoffensive terms just assume everyone
else *must* be racist so they play the pretend game and imagine that if
their idealized proxy for minority that they imagined in their heads
would get offended that it needs to be changed

One of recent (and also not so recent as similar thing was tried few 
decades before with same character) examples of that was when some
activists decided "surely Speedy Gonzales stereotypica presentation 
of Mexicans is racist, lets remove it". 

Someone imagined people portrayed might be offended, decided to not 
ask anyone (or as the single person offended they could find in hundreds)
in actual demographics, then remove it. Then the activists patted 
themselves on the back after doing the good in the world.

Then the minority told them to sod off and bring it back because thats
the opposite of what they wanted and all they ended up doing is pissing
off or wasting time of everyone involved

As for that particular phrase I'm guessing black market came from being
under cover of darkness, underground or otherwise secluded area, but
I'm no etymologist. People just like short descriptive terms and dont 
care much about source of words.

Slave kinda came from that too; in many hardware setups it does
actually means "the device's every action is directed by master" and
not just "a replica or a secondary node", like for example in SPI or
I2C protocol the master is only one putting read/write commands on the
bus and slave device just respons to orders. You could maybe replace it
with thrall but I'm sure someone would be offended on behalf of someone
else by that too somehow...

-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 04:54:12PM +, Alain D D Williams wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 09:03:45AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:
> 
> > > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such
> > > words.
> > 
> > The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin
> > of the *meaning* of the word(s).
> 
> +1
> 
> However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly more accurately 
> how
> some people think. They see a word/phrase that they have decided that they
> "own" [...]

It's not just "they", that's the point. It's us all.

> I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to human
> interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking

Actually, Postel's Law is a very appropriate metaphor. It has two sides.
My side is here: if I have reasons to suspect something might offend my
interlocutor, I'll try to avoid it -- unless there's a stronger reason
not to.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Alain D D Williams]

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 09:03:45AM -0500, The Wanderer wrote:

> > It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such
> > words.
> 
> The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin
> of the *meaning* of the word(s).

+1

However that is not the way that the world works, or prolly more accurately how
some people think. They see a word/phrase that they have decided that they
"own" or somehow relates to them and so view it entirely from their
perspective; they make no attempt to understand how the speaker/writer viewed
the word/phrase as they *know* what the only meaning can be - everything else
is a wrong interpretation. There is little point in trying to argue against
someone who has decided to think this way, arguing will just confirm, to them,
that you are racist/xxxist and are against them.

I sometimes think that something similar to Postel's Law but applied to human
interactions would be useful. However that is wishful thinking

https://devopedia.org/postel-s-law

-- 
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT 
Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256  https://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: 
https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html
#include 

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[The Wanderer]

On 2024-02-24 at 08:42, Emanuel Berg wrote:

> jeremy ardley wrote:
> 
>>> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block market"
>>> work just fine?
>> 
>> The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. It has
>> nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in the dark, not
>> visible,  not official.
> 
> I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated with
> everything negative that is black in language.

The answer to that would then be to stop making such associations, on
the basis that it was a misnomer to label those people as "black" (with
whatever pre-existing connotations, negative or otherwise, that may have
had) in the first place - not to require that everything negative that
has that label be given a different label.

That may seem (or even be) unrealistically facile, but that doesn't mean
it isn't in some sense the correct resolution. It can hardly be much
more unrealistic than getting everyone to change all existing
negative-sense usage of "black".

> It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of such
> words.

The etymology certainly *should* matter, insofar as that is the origin
of the *meaning* of the word(s).

-- 
   The Wanderer

The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one
persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all
progress depends on the unreasonable man. -- George Bernard Shaw



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Emanuel Berg]

jeremy ardley wrote:

>> But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block
>> market" work just fine?
>
> The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45.
> It has nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in
> the dark, not visible,  not official.

I think the reason is black people shouldn't be associated
with everything negative that is black in language.

It was a BLM thing, not sure if it matters the etymology of
such words.

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[jeremy ardley]

On 24/2/24 19:25, Emanuel Berg wrote:

But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block
market" work just fine?


The term "black market" is from World War II - i.e. 1939-45. It has 
nothing to do with slaves. It means transactions in the dark, not 
visible,  not official.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Emanuel Berg]

Marco Moock wrote:

> Just check what different meanings GIMP has. Maybe some more
> people now feel uncomfortable with using it.
> https://www.dict.cc/?s=gimp

Yes, people have been saying that for quite some time:

  https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20359520]

  
https://www.theregister.com/2019/08/28/gimp_open_source_image_editor_forked_to_fix_problematic_name/

Personally, I don't really care, at least not in the
master/slave and GIMP cases.

Blacklist perhaps could and should be changed to blocklist.

But what about the black market? Or does in fact "block
market" work just fine?

-- 
underground experts united
https://dataswamp.org/~incal

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Sat, Feb 24, 2024 at 01:35:14PM +1100, Zenaan Harkness wrote:
> I wrote:
> > You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made
> > clear that the work was already done.
> 
> Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who
> are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language,
> there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not
> decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering
> words.
> 
> If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to
> that healing.

I did wonder how long it would take for someone to go from, "it's
terrible that you activists are MAKING someone do this POINTLESS
non-technical work!" to "no one should use this thing someone did in
their own free time because it's bad, actually, for non-technical
reasons!"

Meanwhile I'd just appreciate hearing from actual users of it, since
I might be one, one day.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Zenaan Harkness]

>> Yeah like asking other people to do changes because they want to be
>> activists on internet but can't bother to put effort to do anything
>> that actually helps anyone.
>
> You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made
> clear that the work was already done.

Assuming we care about the most rapid healing possible for those who
are actually triggered by certain words in one or another language,
there is a valid position to consider that is to increase, not
decrease, exposure to and therefore the broader usage of, triggering
words.

If we care about healing wounds, we ought not remove the catalysts to
that healing.

Salt water stings, but helps clean the wound.

We fail in our duty of care to one another, when we reduce or
eliminate catalysts to healing.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Charles Curley]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 21:10:31 +0100
Ralph Aichinger  wrote:

> I just think this mailing 
> list probably is not the right place to argue this question. 

Hear, hear!

Those who wish to weigh in have done so. I doubt any further
argumentation will change anyone else's mind. Now kindly stop wasting
your time, my time, bandwidth, and hard drive space on this.

And grow some tolerance for other people's foibles, and perhaps others
will grow some tolerance for your foibles.

Thank you.

-- 
Does anybody read signatures any more?

https://charlescurley.com
https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 09:26:09PM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> in my /etc/interfaces there is now:
> 
> auto bond0
> iface bond0 inet static
> address 10.0.16.2/24
> bond-slaves en0 en1
> bond-mode 4
> bond-miimon 100
> bond-downdelay 200
> bond-updelay 200
> bond-lacp-rate 1
> bond-xmit-hash-policy layer3+4
> 
> which seems to work (I could not test throughput yet, because
> I am waiting for cables).
> 
> If I do this, does "ifupdown" use "ifenslave" or does it
> use "ip link set" as described here:

Last time I looked was in Debian 10 (buster) and there it does still
call ifenslave. ifupdown won't be able to bring up bond0 if
ifenslave isn't present on the system. You can verify it with "ifup
-v bond0" to see what commands it uses (assuming your networking was
down to start with, so that this would work).

> Also, above still(?) contains "bond-slaves en0 en1" so if this is
> a new implementation, is there still some terminology change to be
> expected? Or can I replace bond-slaves with something else in the
> current Debian bookworm?

What you describe is still the bonding driver, just without the use
of the "ifenslave" command. The very first reply to you in this
thread was from me pointing you at the teaming driver.

…which I have never used nor yet tried to use. But it *is* meant to
replace/succeed the bonding driver.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Ralph Aichinger]

On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 20:10 +, Andy Smith wrote:
> One more time: a successor to the Ethernet bonding driver already
> exists and has for more than 10 years.

That is the other thing I wanted to ask here, I have configured a
LACP link aggregating interface more or less similar to what is
described in the wiki, in my /etc/interfaces there is now:

auto bond0
iface bond0 inet static
address 10.0.16.2/24
bond-slaves en0 en1
bond-mode 4
bond-miimon 100
bond-downdelay 200
bond-updelay 200
bond-lacp-rate 1
bond-xmit-hash-policy layer3+4

which seems to work (I could not test throughput yet, because
I am waiting for cables).

If I do this, does "ifupdown" use "ifenslave" or does it
use "ip link set" as described here:

https://www.uni-koeln.de/~pbogusze/posts/LACP_configuration_using_iproute2.html

behind the scenes? Is the wiki/documentation lagging the actual
implementation? Is there a way to find out (other than removing
ifenslave and seeing if it still works)?

Should documentation in the wiki be updated?

Also, above still(?) contains "bond-slaves en0 en1" so if this is
a new implementation, is there still some terminology change to be
expected? Or can I replace bond-slaves with something else in the
current Debian bookworm?

/ralph

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Ralph Aichinger]

On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 18:13 +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> "Do what I say, discussion is not allowed because I don't want to
> make a sensible arguments!" 


This certainly is not my position. I have no problem arguing this 
question, and I've got an opinion on it. I just think this mailing 
list probably is not the right place to argue this question. 

> "Damn those people using reason and questioning what I want, just do
> what I say!"
> 
For me it is more: "I know it is controversial, but I do not want to
flood the list with the controversial part, that contains lots of 
personal opinions, political positioning, subjective aspects, but want
to ask about the non-controversial, factual, part, that contains no
political aspects and can be answered without opinion, purely with
facts.

I just want to know the current situation, I don't want to convince
anybody here.


/ralph

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Ralph Aichinger]

On Fri, 2024-02-23 at 11:07 +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> 
> Debian is mostly a collection of many packages that are packed in the
> repo.Such changes are normally done upstream.

I found e.g. this on upstream work on that topic:

https://lore.kernel.org/netdev/e515b840-c6f1-bc07-9369-c95e35257...@solarflare.com/T/

but I must confess I have not dug into upstream kernel sources to find
out if this has been accepted in the kernel, and if so from what
version.

> 
> I don't think that spending time on that is a valuable thing, there
> are more important tasks like testing or adding functionality.



I really don't want to argue any political arguments on the merits of 
removing master/slave, blacklist/whitelist, black hat/white hat here,
but I think "it is some effort" or "it concerns only few people" is not
the strongest argument. *If* one considers it the right thing to do,
then some minor effort in comparable with other minor changes is not
out of line. 

/ralph

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hello,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 06:14:02PM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 14:50:12
> fxkl4...@protonmail.com napisał(a):
> > too many people have nothing constuctive to do
> > so they spend there days stirring the pile
> > idle hands and all that
> 
> Yeah like asking other people to do changes because they want to be
> activists on internet but can't bother to put effort to do anything
> that actually helps anyone.

You seem by now to have ignored multiple messages where it was made
clear that the work was already done.

One more time: a successor to the Ethernet bonding driver already
exists and has for more than 10 years. In a time before some people
decided to get very worked up about inclusive language, it just
happens to avoid the terminology we're talking about.

Again, all I see are people getting very upset, accusing others of
being "woke" and "activists", but somehow they are the ones making
all the noise.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Kamil Jońca]

Dan Ritter  writes:

> Jeffrey Walton wrote: 
>> 
>> I don't want to bikeshed, though. Slavery ended in the US about 150
>> years ago. I don't know any slaves, and I don't own any slaves, so I
>> don't really have a dog in the fight.
>
>
> Point of fact: slavery is legal in the USA, as a legal punishment.
>
> Other point of fact: the effects of slavery in the USA continue
> to be felt in the present.
>
> At this point we have diverged completely from Debian topics.
>
> Let's bring it back around to actual action.
>
> The possible positions:
>
> 1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.
>
> 2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.
>
> 3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants 
> to fix it.
>
> 4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.
>

x. I understand that terminology might be bad, but OTOH we have cost of
modyfying soft.
So I understand that for new piece of code we want to use new terminology
(some time ago github changes branch naming from "master" to "main" for
new projec, IIRC) but for old code we keep old until we have good
reasons to rewrite/refactor it.

KJ

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 1:13 PM Gremlin  wrote:
>
> On 2/23/24 12:51, Dan Ritter wrote:
> > Jeffrey Walton wrote:
>
> [ >/dev/null ]
>
> >
> > Let's bring it back around to actual action.
> >
> > The possible positions:
> >
> > 1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.
> >
> > 2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.
> >
> > 3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else 
> > wants to fix it.
> >
> > 4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.
> >
> > People taking positions one through three are people that I can
> > work with.
>
> 5. The terminology is good and we should fix it.

If you wish to see how this is going to play out, then visit
. That's the Ben Noordhuis
and Node.js pronoun scandal from 2014.

Jeff

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 5:36 AM Ralph Aichinger  wrote:
>
> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
> how far this has been progressed in Debian.
>
> Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of
> network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides
> this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just
> wondering.
>
> https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding

This might be a question that is more appropriate for Debian's
Technical Committee, .

Jeff

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.02.2024 um 12:51:59 Uhr schrieb Dan Ritter:

> 1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.
> 
> 2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.
> 
> 3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone
> else wants to fix it.
> 
> 4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.

5. The terminology is completely different, because machines are
involved and not people.
Many languages have words that are used in many ways for completely
different things.

Just check what different meanings GIMP has.
Maybe some more people now feel uncomfortable with using it.
https://www.dict.cc/?s=gimp


-- 
Gruß
Marco

Spam und Werbung bitte an ichschickerekl...@cartoonies.org

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:24:39AM +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 23.02.2024 schrieb Alain D D Williams :
> 
> > It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers. Should we scour
> > our systems looking for similar issues in other languages ?

[...]

Fifty years ago it was "normal" to beat kids with a ruler
(I know from experience). Should we stop doing this now?

I'd say yes, but perhaps that's just me.

> > say, 20 years time when different words will then be considered
> > offensive, by some, do this all again ?
> 
> In Germany, some organizations do that as well - and most people are
> annoyed by that because it has no benefit.

While I do agree that reality is complex, and that it not always makes
sense, dismissing it right away because it doesn't matter to *you*
is also wrong.

> The most important thing is that the upstream projects would need to
> change that - including all the translators.
> 
> This is always a PITA - for no realistic benefit.

No benefit to *you* perhaps. See, I'm watching this space (free
software and friends) for quite a while now. I've watched it
since before the birth of Linux. Since then, the diversity of
people involved has increased quite a bit (it could be better,
mind you). So the array of things which matter has widened.

It isn't unplausible that the terminology "slave" is offensive
to someone outside your (or my) bubble. So it does make sense
to listen to others than just going by one's "gut feeling".

Here's [1] one ref on that. So yes, it might matter to some.

And to all those "I only take technical decisions". Folks:
tech is as much about physics and chemistry as it is about
anatomy and social science; after all, it is made by humans
for humans. And as to what happens when you have a strong
selection bias in technical design, [2] seems to be the
standard ref those days.

I just don't get it. If people isn't interested in the topic,
fine. Debian is huge, and no one can be interested in every
topic. Just keep out. But this kind of strong reactions...

 - "there is no good reason *why*"
 - "US political feel-good activism" [3]
 - "wastes people's time"

... as seen in this thread, to a simple question? Nah.

And now, I'm out of that thread myself (oh, another package:
git's default branch name "master" has become "main" these
days. No kittens were sacrified for that).

Cheers

[1] https://www.apa.org/ed/precollege/psn/2022/09/inclusive-language
[2] Carolina Criado Pérez "Invisible Women"
Exposing data bias in a world designed for men
Penguin Random House, 2019
[3] The OP was asking from Austria, and given their name, is
   Austrian, but hey, there you go. Perhaps there was some
   contagion via Schwarzenegger -- I hear he is (*horrors*)
   in California.

-- 
tomás


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Gremlin]

On 2/23/24 12:51, Dan Ritter wrote:

Jeffrey Walton wrote:


[ >/dev/null ]



Let's bring it back around to actual action.

The possible positions:

1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.

2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.

3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants 
to fix it.

4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.


People taking positions one through three are people that I can
work with.

-dsr-




5. The terminology is good and we should fix it.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Dan Ritter]

Jeffrey Walton wrote: 
> 
> I don't want to bikeshed, though. Slavery ended in the US about 150
> years ago. I don't know any slaves, and I don't own any slaves, so I
> don't really have a dog in the fight.


Point of fact: slavery is legal in the USA, as a legal punishment.

Other point of fact: the effects of slavery in the USA continue
to be felt in the present.

At this point we have diverged completely from Debian topics.

Let's bring it back around to actual action.

The possible positions:

1. The terminology is bad, and I'm willing to work on fixing it.

2. The terminology is bad, but I can't work on it myself.

3. The terminology does not bother me, but I don't care if someone else wants 
to fix it.

4. The terminology is good and we should not fix it.


People taking positions one through three are people that I can
work with.

-dsr-

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 14:50:12
fxkl4...@protonmail.com napisał(a):

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Andy Smith wrote:
> 
> > Hi,
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:  
> >> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> >> political aspects of the "why",  
> >
> > No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very
> > strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you
> > asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical
> > facts they claim to care about.   
> 
> too many people have nothing constuctive to do
> so they spend there days stirring the pile
> idle hands and all that
> 

Yeah like asking other people to do changes because they want to be
activists on internet but can't bother to put effort to do anything
that actually helps anyone.

-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 14:44:03
Andy Smith  napisał(a):

> Hi,
> 
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> > political aspects of the "why",  
> 
> No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very
> strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you
> asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical
> facts they claim to care about. 

"Do what I say, discussion is not allowed because I don't want to make
a sensible arguments!" 

"Damn those people using reason and questioning what I want, just do
what I say!"

Yes, completely unsurprising as those kinds of demands always come from
those kinds of unreasonable people.

Fork a kernel, do your changes and see how many are interested.


-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Jeffrey Walton]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 5:08 AM Marco Moock  wrote:
> Am 22.02.2024 schrieb Ralph Aichinger :
> [...]
> > Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of
> > network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides
> > this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just
> > wondering.
> >
> > https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding
>
> I don't know why somebody should waste time for changing terms there.
> There is almost no technical benefit and the amount of people who
> operate Ethernet bonds is small, so the probability that somebody feels
> disturbed by those terms here is also small.
> [...]
> I don't think that spending time on that is a valuable thing, there are
> more important tasks like testing or adding functionality.

I align with most of this position. An engineer's time is better spent
on technical problems, not political ones. There is no technical
benefit, so don't spend time on it. And there are other venues for
political discourse.

> If you like to change that, feel free to create a fork of the upstream
> projects and use the terms you prefer.

I hope no one would object if OP created a politically correct
ifenslave-pc package.

I don't want to bikeshed, though. Slavery ended in the US about 150
years ago. I don't know any slaves, and I don't own any slaves, so I
don't really have a dog in the fight.

Jeff

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[fxkl47BF]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Andy Smith wrote:

> Hi,
>
> On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
>> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
>> political aspects of the "why",
>
> No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very
> strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you
> asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical
> facts they claim to care about. 

too many people have nothing constuctive to do
so they spend there days stirring the pile
idle hands and all that

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> political aspects of the "why",

No surprise that there are a lot of people in this thread with very
strong feelings that they simply must tell us about, even though you
asked them not to, and very little to say on the actual technical
facts they claim to care about. 

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> It would *literally* break every single script that checks the status
> of bonding config in system, as it is all just plain text.

Unless a different driver was made instead. Which is what actually
happened.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 12:14:10PM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 11:25:25
> Roger Price  napisał(a):
> > On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
> > > The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail.
> > >  
> > 
> > With the publication of RFC 9271 "UPS Management Protocol", the nut
> > packages (Network UPS Tools) did a vocabulary cleanup

[…]

> Did you looked up what actually changed and thought about implications
> vs changing kernel interfaces or did you just google for random tidbit
> of which project did waste time on that ?

Roger is responding to a statement of there being no other, with the
info that there is at least one other.

Thanks,
Andy

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Stephen P. Molnar]

On 02/23/2024 07:33 AM, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:

Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 12:40:19
Arno Lehmann  napisał(a):


On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:

On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:

Hello!

I know this is a loaded topic...

...

There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
activism

Statement one above proven.

...

All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the
have to fix

If there's a single person in the world who feels existing
terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.

So you do nothing all day or ? Because there is always someone that
will find something a problem.


If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.

That's HORRID argument. You can do massive variety of unexcusably bad
things with that excuse. "But that person was happy for it"


If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments
such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong
ones.


And that 0.001% that isn't even affected by term want it changed is
argument to you why ?


As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.


How about "unable to discuss actual topic but throwing useless
generalizations in every sentence"? Is that woke or rude ?




Neither. it's a waste of bandwidth!

I'm guilty of that for posting this.

--
Stephen P. Molnar, Ph.D.
https://insilicochemistry.net
(614)312-7528 (c)
Skype:  smolnar1

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 12:40:19
Arno Lehmann  napisał(a):

> On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> > On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:  
> >> Hello!
> >>
> >> I know this is a loaded topic...  
> ...
> > There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good 
> > activism  
> 
> Statement one above proven.
> 
> ...
> > All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the
> > have to fix  
> 
> If there's a single person in the world who feels existing
> terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.

So you do nothing all day or ? Because there is always someone that
will find something a problem.

> If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.

That's HORRID argument. You can do massive variety of unexcusably bad
things with that excuse. "But that person was happy for it"

> If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments 
> such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong
> ones.
> 

And that 0.001% that isn't even affected by term want it changed is
argument to you why ?

> As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.
> 

How about "unable to discuss actual topic but throwing useless
generalizations in every sentence"? Is that woke or rude ?



-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.02.2024 schrieb Arno Lehmann :

> If there's a single person in the world who feels existing
> terminology to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.

Everytime there is somebody who doesn't like something.
I mostly care about technology and not the feelings a small amount of
users has.
It is free software - everybody can create a fork and change the stuff.

> If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.

I simply don't care about those feelings.

> If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments 
> such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong
> ones.

The amount of work needed to change it is of course a really strong
argument because there need to be people who are willing to change it
and spend their time on it.
The technical gain of that is exactly zero, it doesn't solve any bug,
it doesn't add a feature, it doesn't make it easier to use, it simply
makes some tiny amount of users feel better.

> As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.

Feel free to do so. I like the freedom in free software, so everybody
can create software without "problematic" terms.

> Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably
> also a loaded topic.

It cannot be completely separated because there is a language that is
being used and that language is part of a political discussion.

Although, it doesn't mean that a developers needs to change something.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Arno Lehmann]

On 23.02.24 at 10:33, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:

On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:

Hello!

I know this is a loaded topic...

...
There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good 
activism


Statement one above proven.

...
All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have 
to fix


If there's a single person in the world who feels existing terminology 
to hurt them, I consider my usage of such terms.


If it makes one person feel better, I think I did something good.

If it makes others feel worse, I have to balance arguments. Arguments 
such as "it was always thus" or "it's too much effort" are not strong ones.


As it happens, I prefer being called "woke" above being rude.

Oh, and tech and culture can not be separated, but that's probably also 
a loaded topic.


Cheers,

Arno

--
Arno Lehmann

IT-Service Lehmann
Sandstr. 6, 49080 Osnabrück

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 10:54:09
 napisał(a):

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> > On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:  
> > > Hello!
> > > 
> > > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> > > political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts,
> > > i.e. how far this has been progressed in Debian.  
> > 
> > There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
> > activism  
> [...]
> 
> Oh, goody. A culture warrior.
> 
> *plonk*
> 

Me? Exactly opposite, I'm against bringing culture into tech, it's the
OP that decided to.

It's a pair of words that worked well for decades for the purpose. Now
someone decided to do some feel good activism and just add work for no
gain. I'm against that.

-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

Dnia 2024-02-23, o godz. 11:25:25
Roger Price  napisał(a):

> On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:
> 
> > The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail.
> >  
> 
> With the publication of RFC 9271 "UPS Management Protocol", the nut
> packages (Network UPS Tools) did a vocabulary cleanup at release
> 2.8.0 which included changing Master/Slave to Primary/Secondary.
> There have been no reports in the mailing list of this causing any
> problems.
> 
> Roger
> 

Because nut have backward-compatible name support. Can't do that if you
change literal text returned by kernel about device config. That is why
it "works" (for us too, we use it). Bringing unrelated project to the
discussion is, well, unrelated as problems are of entirely different
kind, making config backward-compatible is far easier than what it
returns (and nothing realistically would check for the word anyway in
case of UPS)

Did you looked up what actually changed and thought about implications
vs changing kernel interfaces or did you just google for random tidbit
of which project did waste time on that ?

-- 
Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Roger Price]

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024, Marco Moock wrote:


The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail.


With the publication of RFC 9271 "UPS Management Protocol", the nut packages 
(Network UPS Tools) did a vocabulary cleanup at release 2.8.0 which included 
changing Master/Slave to Primary/Secondary.  There have been no reports in the 
mailing list of this causing any problems.


Roger

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.02.2024 schrieb Alain D D Williams :

> It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers. Should we scour
> our systems looking for similar issues in other languages ? Then in,
> say, 20 years time when different words will then be considered
> offensive, by some, do this all again ?

In Germany, some organizations do that as well - and most people are
annoyed by that because it has no benefit.

The most important thing is that the upstream projects would need to
change that - including all the translators.

This is always a PITA - for no realistic benefit.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 23.02.2024 schrieb :

[...]

> > Oh, goody. A culture warrior.
> 
> I'm sure you have good reasons for changing the terms. Feel free to
> provide some real arguments that have a benefit for the users.

I'm not the one proposing changing the terms. But I do have
strong reasons to dislike people foaming at the mouth whenever
someone considers even discussing it.

Cheers
-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Marco Moock]

Am 22.02.2024 schrieb Ralph Aichinger :

> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
> how far this has been progressed in Debian.

Debian is mostly a collection of many packages that are packed in the
repo.
Such changes are normally done upstream.

> Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of
> network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides
> this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just
> wondering.
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding

I don't know why somebody should waste time for changing terms there.
There is almost no technical benefit and the amount of people who
operate Ethernet bonds is small, so the probability that somebody feels
disturbed by those terms here is also small. Most people don't care
about master/slave either, they simply use that and don't let the wokes
spoil the party.

If you like to change that, feel free to create a fork of the upstream
projects and use the terms you prefer.

I don't think that spending time on that is a valuable thing, there are
more important tasks like testing or adding functionality.

The only package I am aware of that changed some terms is sendmail.

They decided to use blocklist_recipients instead of
backlist_recipients, but blacklist still works.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Alain D D Williams]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> > political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
> > how far this has been progressed in Debian.
> 
> There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism
> that doesn't change anything but wastes people's time. Do you actually think
> pressing on brake pedal oppresses anybody ? Because it also has master and 
> slave
> cylinder.
> 
> All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have to fix
> every script, tool and doc piece related to  it, for absolutely no benefit
> aside from making some twitter activist happy "they did something".
> It would *literally* break every single script that checks the status
> of bonding config in system, as it is all just plain text.

+1

It is "fixing" an issue for today's English speakers. Should we scour our
systems looking for similar issues in other languages ? Then in, say, 20 years
time when different words will then be considered offensive, by some, do this
all again ?

-- 
Alain Williams
Linux/GNU Consultant - Mail systems, Web sites, Networking, Programmer, IT 
Lecturer.
+44 (0) 787 668 0256  https://www.phcomp.co.uk/
Parliament Hill Computers. Registration Information: 
https://www.phcomp.co.uk/Contact.html
#include 

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Marco Moock]

Am 23.02.2024 schrieb :

> On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> > On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:  
> > > Hello!
> > > 
> > > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> > > political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts,
> > > i.e. how far this has been progressed in Debian.  
> > 
> > There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good
> > activism  
> [...]
> 
> Oh, goody. A culture warrior.

I'm sure you have good reasons for changing the terms. Feel free to
provide some real arguments that have a benefit for the users.

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[tomas]

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 10:33:08AM +0100, Mariusz Gronczewski wrote:
> On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> > Hello!
> > 
> > I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> > political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
> > how far this has been progressed in Debian.
> 
> There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism
[...]

Oh, goody. A culture warrior.

*plonk*

-- 
t


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Mariusz Gronczewski]

On 22.02.2024 11:19, Ralph Aichinger wrote:

Hello!

I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
how far this has been progressed in Debian.


There is no good reason *why*. It's entirely US political feel-good activism
that doesn't change anything but wastes people's time. Do you actually think
pressing on brake pedal oppresses anybody ? Because it also has master and slave
cylinder.

All it does is wastes tens of thousands of people's time once the have to fix
every script, tool and doc piece related to  it, for absolutely no benefit
aside from making some twitter activist happy "they did something".
It would *literally* break every single script that checks the status
of bonding config in system, as it is all just plain text.


--

Mariusz Gronczewski (XANi) 
GnuPG: 0xEA8ACE64
https://devrandom.eu

Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Andy Smith]

Hi,

On Thu, Feb 22, 2024 at 11:19:16AM +0100, Ralph Aichinger wrote:
> I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
> political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
> how far this has been progressed in Debian.

As Debian is not itself upstream for most of the software it
distributes, it is going to rely on upstream projects to make these
changes. I am not aware of any coordinated effort in Debian to find
instances of this terminology and propose changes upstream.

That sort of project-wide consensus is hard to achieve in Debian
(even on non-controversial topics) so I wouldn't be surprised if
Debian Developers who are interested in this would not get further
by just proposing the changes to upstream projects themselves as
individuals.

So then, if you spot such terminology in use somewhere there is
nothing stopping you from having a look at their issue tracker to
see if there is already an issue in place about that and possibly
propose changes yourself.

> Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of
> network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides
> this terminology)?

The Ethernet bonding driver is a kernel module. It is quite old
(decades) and hasn't seen much development recently, I think because
it is generally considered complete.

There has been a replacement/successor for the Ethernet bonding
driver for some time — the teaming driver — which does away with the
older terminology as well as providing a few other improvements:

https://libteam.org/

However I must confess that despite having bonded Ethernets on all
my works servers (with ifenslave for userland control) I personally
have never spent the time to convert to libteam and I rarely see
other examples of people having done so.

I think possibly a reason for this is that the Ethernet bonding
driver was considered complete a long time ago and the purely
technical improvements of the teaming driver are quite small or
niche, so few people see the need to change. I have used the bonding
driver since before the teaming driver existed, so there's been some
inertia against me learning a new thing.

It would be good to see more use and examples for libteam to help
people like me¹ feel more confident in switching.

If you proceed with it, how about making a page on the Debian
wiki?

Thanks,
Andy

¹ Although in my specific case we are actually in the middle of
  switching to a BGP architecture where each server BGP peers and
  all traffic is routed at layer 3, not switched at layer 2. Each
  server's individual Ethernet interfaces are being broken out and
  bonding will not be used at all any more. The redundancy of
  network will come from BGP.

-- 
https://bitfolk.com/ -- No-nonsense VPS hosting

Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP

[Ralph Aichinger]

Hello!

I know this is a loaded topic. I really don't want to discuss the
political aspects of the "why", but just want to know the facts, i.e.
how far this has been progressed in Debian.

Is there anything planned to get "master/slave" terminology out of
network bonding/LACP in Debian (or Linux kernel or whoever decides
this terminology)? I know these things are slow to change, just
wondering.

https://wiki.debian.org/Bonding

/ralph