On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 02:11:03PM +0100, Anton Ivanov wrote: > A follower is following the leader because it has agreed to be lead. As > correctly noted by Stewart, in a master/slave hardware (or software) > configuration nobody asks the slave about its opinion on things. Well, ok, but in (e.g.) the DNS, the slave actually is in the position to refuse the zone transfer on the grounds that it is malformed. This happens sometimes, so in fact in at least one prominent use of these terms in the IETF the absolute power of the "master" is not true. I am aware of other examples, too, so if the justification is the absolute slavishness (if you'll pardon the word) of the putative slaves, I think the description isn't quite correct anyway. For whatever it's worth, I have no opinion about whether this bit of language needs to change, though I do somewhat prefer the "primary/secondary" usage. Note that these terms denote a logical relationship, not a temporal or existential one, so there can be multiple primaries (in some cases) and multiple secondaries (frequently). It does seem to me that, if one wishes to communicate with others, it's often a good idea to avoid causing them offense. Best regards, A -- Andrew Sullivan ajs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
