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

To: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>
Cc: debian-user@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
From: tomas@tuxteam.de
Date: Fri, 23 Feb 2024 11:11:52 +0100
Message-id: <[🔎] ZdhvaJ7KPzwkBbFH@tuxteam.de>
In-reply-to: <[🔎] 20240223110039.45561c44@dorfdsl.de>
References: <[🔎] a1cd0ed0535969dcbfb73c9fafa1a0e1669f56b6.camel@h5.or.at> <[🔎] f69b4b45-96ce-1214-1f9a-c65ceaa53c75@devrandom.pl> <[🔎] ZdhrQYApQWNXJ2py@tuxteam.de> <[🔎] 20240223110039.45561c44@dorfdsl.de>

On Fri, Feb 23, 2024 at 11:00:39AM +0100, Marco Moock wrote:
> Am 23.02.2024 schrieb <tomas@tuxteam.de>:

[...]

> > 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Reply to:

References:
- Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Ralph Aichinger <ra@h5.or.at>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Mariusz Gronczewski <xani@devrandom.pl>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: <tomas@tuxteam.de>
- Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
  - From: Marco Moock <mm@dorfdsl.de>

Prev by Date: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Next by Date: Selective rotation of journald logs
Previous by thread: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Next by thread: Re: Inclusive terminology (instead of master/slave) for network bonding/LACP
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread