Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, John Hasler wrote: deloptes writes: Some 40-50y ago you did not like the word Neger, so it was replaced with Black. You did nothing all those 50y to change the perception of black. Now you have problem with the word Black Wrong. "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Mon, Jun 22, 2020 at 12:14 PM deloptes wrote: > Miles Fidelman wrote: > > > It's only a good solution if people actually adopt and use them. > > They/them/their has caught on, but it's kind of hard to differentiate > > singular/plural when you use them to be gender neutral. > > No people will

Re: technical terms overhaul

Miles Fidelman wrote: > It's only a good solution if people actually adopt and use them. > They/them/their has caught on, but it's kind of hard to differentiate > singular/plural when you use them to be gender neutral. No people will not adopt them because it is against the law of economy in spee

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 6/22/20 5:59 AM, Will Mengarini wrote: * Miles Fidelman [20-06/20=Sa 11:58 -0400]: Solve the problem of establishing a good set of gender-neutral pronouns, for English, (and maybe declarations in other languages) - then let's come back and debate colors. Here you go: cocos cos

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, davidson wrote: On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 6/21/20 2:55 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote: Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this thread terminated with extreme prejudice. Agreed. Speaking as someone who hosts a lot of email

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, Miles Fidelman wrote: On 6/21/20 2:55 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote: Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this thread terminated with extreme prejudice. Agreed. Speaking as someone who hosts a lot of email lists - it really gets annoying when di

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 6/21/20 2:55 PM, James H. H. Lampert wrote: Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this thread terminated with extreme prejudice. Agreed. Speaking as someone who hosts a lot of email lists - it really gets annoying when discussions of offense & netiquette crowd out

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 2020-06-21 21:24, John Hasler wrote: mick writes: Barbary pirates, Ottoman Empire enslaved over 2 million Europeans but you don't see their descendants so much because they were castrated. It really is not white man bad black man good. During the same period European serfs were really slave

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, John Hasler wrote: mick writes: Barbary pirates, Ottoman Empire enslaved over 2 million Europeans but you don't see their descendants so much because they were castrated. It really is not white man bad black man good. During the same period European serfs were really slav

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 11:55:51 -0700 "James H. H. Lampert" wrote: > Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this > thread terminated with extreme prejudice. Hear! Hear! -- Does anybody read signatures any more? https://charlescurley.com https://charlescurley.com/blog/

Re: technical terms overhaul

mick writes: > Barbary pirates, Ottoman Empire enslaved over 2 million Europeans but > you don't see their descendants so much because they were > castrated. It really is not white man bad black man good. During the same period European serfs were really slaves. During Roman and earlier times sla

Re: technical terms overhaul

"A rose by any other name would smell as sweet"

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 2020-06-19 20:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On the danger of starting a flame war ... thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: "allowlist" and "rejectlist" instead of (for example on disk drives) "master"

Re: technical terms overhaul

Personally, if I were a moderator on this List, I would order this thread terminated with extreme prejudice. -- JHHL

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 6/21/20 10:01 AM, The Wanderer wrote: On 2020-06-21 at 12:53, deloptes wrote: John Hasler wrote: Wrong. "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites and always had derogatory connotations. "Black" originated with blacks and has no derogatory connotations (except as used by

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 08:36:33 +0200 deloptes wrote: Hello deloptes, I'm simply going to ignore most of what you wrote, but this, I won't pass by; >just fine. Also in the west - in example all the companies that use >child labor. >So you (I dare to call you all cowards) do not stand up against mo

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 09:14:36 -0500 John Hasler wrote: > deloptes writes: > > Some 40-50y ago you did not like the word Neger, so it was replaced > > with Black. You did nothing all those 50y to change the perception > > of black. Now you have problem with the word Black > > Wrong. "Nigger" (a

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 2020-06-21 at 12:53, deloptes wrote: > John Hasler wrote: > >> Wrong. "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites >> and always had derogatory connotations. "Black" originated with >> blacks and has no derogatory connotations (except as used by racist >> whites who would say "ni

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun Jun 21 08:15:00 2020 deloptes wrote: > Eike Lantzsch wrote: > >> If we change the language it might change the mind little by little - >> or not at all. Depends on which influences on a person or group of >> persons is stronger. ("For mere oppression may make a wise one act >> crazy, ..

Re: technical terms overhaul

John Hasler wrote: > Wrong.  "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites and > always had derogatory connotations.  "Black" originated with blacks and > has no derogatory connotations (except as used by racist whites who > would say "nigger" if they could get away with it).  It is wha

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020, to...@tuxteam.de wrote: On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 07:23:44AM -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: [...] Hi also, Yep, it is true that working on the symptoms does not cure the malady. [...] Thanks for this balanced assessment. IMO the important thing is the process. Of course, i

Re: technical terms overhaul

If I were about to do any technical terms overhaul, I'd keep two considerations front of mind. 1) are the proposed replacements at least equally descriptive or better, and 2) Do the proposed replacements use the same letter counts or smaller letter counts than the original terms? If the proposed re

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sunday, June 21, 2020 01:48:08 AM Andrei POPESCU wrote: > On Sb, 20 iun 20, 22:50:44, deloptes wrote: > > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Others have already addressed your logic better than I could. > > > > > > Instead I'd like to point out that "normal" is basically just some > > > state agreed o

Re: technical terms overhaul

Joe writes: > Sorry to disagree, but 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' do not > belong in the same sentence. The term "politically correct" has been pretty much destroyed and is now just an epithet always used with intent to insult. It originated with the far left to mean just what it says. E

Re: technical terms overhaul

deloptes writes: > Some 40-50y ago you did not like the word Neger, so it was replaced > with Black. You did nothing all those 50y to change the perception of > black. Now you have problem with the word Black Wrong. "Nigger" (a corruption of negro) was only used by whites and always had derogator

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, Jun 21, 2020 at 07:23:44AM -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: [...] > Hi also, > Yep, it is true that working on the symptoms does not cure the malady. [...] Thanks for this balanced assessment. IMO the important thing is the process. Of course, if we change language and nothing else then we ha

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sun, 21 Jun 2020 13:51:18 +0200 deloptes wrote: > > As for me my children know very well what is white/black race and > know very well what means to be tolerant or in your language > "political correct". Sorry to disagree, but 'tolerant' and 'politically correct' do not belong in the same s

Re: technical terms overhaul

Eike Lantzsch wrote: > If we change the > language it might change the mind little by little - or not at all. > Depends on which influences on a person or group of persons is stronger. > ("For mere oppression may make a wise one act crazy, ..."[2]) You have obviously no idea of how language works

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sunday, 21 June 2020 06:11:58 -04 Rob van der Putten wrote: > Hi there > > On 19/06/2020 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > On the danger of starting a flame war ... > > thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian > > > > instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose

Re: technical terms overhaul

On So, Jun 21, 2020 at 08:43:57 +0300, Andrei POPESCU wrote: They are not exactly descriptive and are awkward to translate in other languages. Here in Germany you don’t have to translate blacklist/whitelist. They are part of the technical language. Shade and sweet water! Stephan --

Re: technical terms overhaul

Hi there On 19/06/2020 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On the danger of starting a flame war ... thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: "allowlist" and "rejectlist" instead of (for example on disk drives

Re: technical terms overhaul

Thomas Schmitt wrote: > In the end, we have to face the fact that there are statements which > have no truth value. And that is what i wanted to emphasize to defute > the argument that either "P" or "not P" must be true for all statements P. Yes, taken out of context, thank you (very helpful)!

Re: technical terms overhaul

Hi, Leslie Rhorer wrote: > "This statement is false" isn't really anything profound. It does > illustrate there can exist internally inconsistent logical entities, but > really it is merely an artifact of the situation that just because a string > of words is grammatically correct does not imply

Re: technical terms overhaul

Put more simply, every formal proof must contain at least one assumption and at least one undefined term. In practice, three undefined terms and three postulates is a fairly tight, well contained logical construct. "This statement is false" isn't really anything profound. It does illustra

Re: technical terms overhaul

Brad Rogers wrote: > Hello deloptes, > >>I know I know - but no one cares. I > > So very true.  How's the slave trade going? When you look at Saudi Arabia and alike (Israel is not better)- it works just fine. Also in the west - in example all the companies that use child labor. So you (I dare t

Re: technical terms overhaul

Hi, i wrote: > > statements which are neither true nor false. > > Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem. Celejar wrote: > No - Gödel proved that any such (formal) system will contain statements > such that neither they nor their negations are *provable within the > system*. These statements are ac

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 22:49:45 +0200 deloptes wrote: Hello deloptes, >I know I know - but no one cares. I So very true. How's the slave trade going? -- Regards _ / ) "The blindingly obvious is / _)radnever immediately apparent" I'm in need of your help now

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sb, 20 iun 20, 22:50:44, deloptes wrote: > Andrei POPESCU wrote: > > > Others have already addressed your logic better than I could. > > > > Instead I'd like to point out that "normal" is basically just some state > > agreed on by a specific majority. > > > > Or maybe you think that everyone

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sb, 20 iun 20, 21:57:31, Weaver wrote: > On 21-06-2020 13:41, Celejar wrote: > > > > I respect your position (and I'm not sure yet where I stand), but how > > far does this go? Should we rename the "kill" command, since it can > > remind people of how badly their friends and relatives were trea

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 21-06-2020 13:41, Celejar wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:41:11 -0400 > Dan Ritter wrote: > >> Gene Heskett wrote: >> > On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote: >> > >> > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: >> > > > What do you think? >> > > >> > > If we knew what

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:41:11 -0400 Dan Ritter wrote: > Gene Heskett wrote: > > On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote: > > > > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > > > What do you think? > > > > > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link? > >

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 20:47:36 +0200 "Thomas Schmitt" wrote: > Hi, > > deloptes wrote: > > by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can be true > > Any system of thought, which follows the principles of classical logic > and which contains the usual math of natural numbers, contains

Re: technical terms overhaul

Thomas Schmitt wrote: > i wrote: >> > Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem. > > deloptes wrote: >> If you've been studying logic you would know better, > Exactly you wrote Goedel - the science of logic did not end up with Goedel ... at least not for me ;-) But Thomas - I do not want to argue her

Re: technical terms overhaul

Hi, i wrote: > > Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem. deloptes wrote: > If you've been studying logic you would know better, Ahum. Which of the preconditions of the theorem are not fulfilled by the kind of logic you refer to ? - Can some of its true statements not be written down as finite seque

Re: technical terms overhaul

Andrei POPESCU wrote: > Others have already addressed your logic better than I could. > > Instead I'd like to point out that "normal" is basically just some state > agreed on by a specific majority. > > Or maybe you think that everyone should be running Windows and Linux > doesn't make any sense

Re: technical terms overhaul

Brad Rogers wrote: > {leaving aside that language isn't maths, binary logic doesn't apply to > people, and any other canard you care to take a swing at} > > That's why the term used most often now is LGBTQ+, which includes more > sexualities.  The goalposts are still moving, however. > > Above i

Re: technical terms overhaul

The Wanderer wrote: > * If you consider white to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., black) is > considered to be not normal. > > * If you consider male to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., female) is > considered to be not normal. > > * If you consider right-handed to be normal, then all the

Re: technical terms overhaul

Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Any system of thought, which follows the principles of classical logic > and which contains the usual math of natural numbers, contains statements > which are neither true nor false. > Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness theorem. > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Formally_Undecida

Re: technical terms overhaul

to...@tuxteam.de wrote: > Wait a sec. This is getting really weird now. Logic doesn't care about > your views. > Neither it cares about yours tomas. And regarding filtering out - I really can't tell - so why writing it down? I read yours with pleasure as far as they are of technical nature

Re: technical terms overhaul

On another note, I hear from now on white bread is to be referred to as `privilege loaf'. -- `Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful'. — Lucius Annæus Seneca. Terrorism, the new religion. Registered Linux User: 554515

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sb, 20 iun 20, 19:33:16, deloptes wrote: > > I asked them how would > they approach the fact that logically only one thing can be considered > correct/normal (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can > be true). Others have already addressed your logic better than I could. I

Re: technical terms overhaul

Wow, lots of responses here! Going back to a more productive approach, let me suggest another pair: yes-list and no-list. It's easy to understand, non-dubious, and easily translated. []'s Francisco Em sáb, 20 de jun de 2020 15:54, The Wanderer escreveu: > On 2020-06-20 at 13:33, deloptes wrote

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020 19:33:16 +0200 deloptes wrote: Hello deloptes, >be true). If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is >considered as not normal or vv. {leaving aside that language isn't maths, binary logic doesn't apply to people, and any other canard you care to take a swing at

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20-06-2020 23:57, Dan Ritter wrote: > Weaver wrote: >> On 20-06-2020 12:57, Dan Ritter wrote: >> > Weaver wrote: >> >> >> >> I think it's possible to get too politically correct. >> > >> > Try this phrase: >> > >> > "I think it's possible to get too polite." >> >> No, there's no value in twisti

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 2020-06-20 at 13:33, deloptes wrote: > (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can be true). > If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is considered as > not normal or vv. By this same reasoning: * If you consider white to be normal, then all the rest (e.g., black)

Re: technical terms overhaul

Hi, deloptes wrote: > by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can be true Any system of thought, which follows the principles of classical logic and which contains the usual math of natural numbers, contains statements which are neither true nor false. Kurt Goedel. Incompleteness th

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 07:33:16PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > [...] (by logic and ontology there is either P or not P that can > be true). If you consider LGBT to be normal, then all the rest is > considered as not normal or vv. Wait a sec. This is getting really weird now. Logic doesn't care about

Re: technical terms overhaul

elvis wrote: > Since the terms have nothing to do with race, then no. Are you proposing > to rename everything with the word black in it? Sometimes a cigar is > just a cigar. > > >> "allowlist" and "rejectlist" >> instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like to >> propose

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Vi, 19 iun 20, 17:44:46, Greg Wooledge wrote: > https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashProgramming/04?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9 > > I went with "blocklist" because it's so close to the original term that > it should be easily understood. Then, to match that, I chose "passlist" > for the other one.

Re: technical terms overhaul

elvis writes: > If you are not a native English speaker then how do you know what > allow and reject mean? By knowing the English language and therefor having the words "allow", "reject", and "list" in his vocabulary. "Blacklist" and "whitelist" are also English words but not part of basic Englis

Re: technical terms overhaul

Edwin Land once said: "/Politeness is the slow poison of collaboration." /I've generally found that to be quite true.  (Then again, I'm a New York Jew - brusqueness and argumentativeness are my bywords.) Re. whitelist/blacklist:  IMO, on the one hand the really direct tie between good/bad and

Re: technical terms overhaul

to...@tuxteam.de wrote: >> I think you deal with symptoms and not with the causes. >> Obama was 8y in power - what he did? Right - nothing! > > I guess opinions on that will vary. I don't know whether this is a > language problem, but I feel you tend to state your opinions as if > they were facts

Re: technical terms overhaul

Dan Ritter wrote: > I have yet to see a use of the term "political correctness" in > modern speech -- say, since 1990 -- that did not mean "people > are being polite and I don't want them to be polite". > > I'm open to correction if you have real-world examples. It is all about dictatorship - wh

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20/6/20 6:28 am, Marco Möller wrote: On 19.06.20 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On the danger of starting a flame war ... thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: "allowlist" and "rejectlist" instead

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20/6/20 5:14 am, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On the danger of starting a flame war ... thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: Since the terms have nothing to do with race, then no. Are you proposing t

Re: technical terms overhaul

Weaver wrote: > On 20-06-2020 12:57, Dan Ritter wrote: > > Weaver wrote: > >> > >> I think it's possible to get too politically correct. > > > > Try this phrase: > > > > "I think it's possible to get too polite." > > No, there's no value in twisting words. > The wrong connotation gets promoted

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Saturday 20 June 2020 08:07:31 Thomas Schmitt wrote: > Hi, > > Joe wrote: > > What *ought* to be done is make the skin colour descriptions more > > representative of reality. > > Correct observation. But i expect that racists would just replace the > discrimination of "black" people by discrimi

Re: technical terms overhaul

Hi, Joe wrote: > What *ought* to be done is make the skin colour descriptions more > representative of reality. Correct observation. But i expect that racists would just replace the discrimination of "black" people by discrimination of those who are "darker than RAL 1015". -

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 01:20:15PM +0200, deloptes wrote: > Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > > I really like "redlist" and "greenlist". Traffic lights abound in every > > country and are most probably well understood everywhere. > > Have a nice day > > Eike > > I think you deal with symptoms and not with

Re: technical terms overhaul

Eike Lantzsch wrote: > I really like "redlist" and "greenlist". Traffic lights abound in every > country and are most probably well understood everywhere. > Have a nice day > Eike I think you deal with symptoms and not with the causes. Obama was 8y in power - what he did? Right - nothing! You al

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020 18:51:27 -0300 riveravaldez wrote: > For humans, white is also full-spectrum visible light refraction, and > black, full-spectrum visible light absorption - or absence of light. > So, not always black-and-white (as in typography, let's say) has a > necessary sociopolitical co

Re: technical terms overhaul

Il 19/06/20 23:39, Default User ha scritto: I think that is absolutely ridiculous. Amen.

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20-06-2020 12:57, Dan Ritter wrote: > Weaver wrote: >> >> I think it's possible to get too politically correct. > > Try this phrase: > > "I think it's possible to get too polite." No, there's no value in twisting words. The wrong connotation gets promoted. > I suppose that's true -- if yo

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Friday 19 June 2020 22:57:44 Dan Ritter wrote: > Weaver wrote: > > I think it's possible to get too politically correct. > > Try this phrase: > > "I think it's possible to get too polite." > > I suppose that's true -- if your object is to insult someone. > > > Why are we attaching a concept lik

Re: technical terms overhaul

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA256 How about yesList, noList? Or for fans off Cisco IOS ACLs, permitList, denyList? With short aliases ylist, nlist or plist, dlist -- all blessed in an RFC so everybody but Microsoft will include them in their configuration language? -- Glenn Engli

Re: technical terms overhaul

Weaver wrote: > > I think it's possible to get too politically correct. Try this phrase: "I think it's possible to get too polite." I suppose that's true -- if your object is to insult someone. > Why are we attaching a concept like skin colour to list names as a > serious proposition? Exactl

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Sat, 20 Jun 2020, davidson wrote: [snip] Blacklist/whitelist are folksy names for the dual concepts of filter/ideal, respectively. This is false, and I am duly embarrassed. I will see myself out now. -- @almightygenie 8 Jun 2020 | @Windex Thanks, Windex. That’s a relief. Your drink is e

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20/06/2020 11:19, Larry Martell wrote: On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:08 PM Eike Lantzsch wrote: I really like "redlist" and "greenlist". Offensive to Native Americans and Martians. And also culturally confusing to some Chinese in which red is a happy colour. As I understand it, Chinese stock

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20/06/2020 09:45, davidson wrote: On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Dan Ritter wrote: Most things described as master/slave aren't actually very well matched by that metaphor. Source/sink, boss/worker, Woah there. "Team Leader" / "Team Member", please. "Secretary of the Workers' Revolutionary Committee

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20/06/2020 07:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote: instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like to propose the terms This discussion reminds me of the PC gaming supremacists on the pcmasterrace subreddit . The term "master" has a long his

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On Friday, 19 June 2020 17:42:51 -04 davidson wrote: On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On the danger of starting a flame war ... thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian Link? https://gwolf.org/2020/06/on-masters-and-slave

Re: technical terms overhaul

Eike writes: > instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: > "allowlist" and "rejectlist" Yes, that improves communications. The words are no longer and express their meanings quite directly. > instead of (for example on disk drives) "master" and "slave" I like to >

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 20-06-2020 06:14, David Wright wrote: > Passlist and faillist, perhaps? Pass list already exists as a two word > phrase, so people are used to saying it. Oh, I don't know. This introduces judgement and the concept of failure. This could negatively impact on any number of personalities. (tongue

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:34 PM Nicholas Geovanis wrote: > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 6:20 PM Larry Martell > wrote: > >> On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:08 PM Eike Lantzsch wrote: >> >>> >>> I really like "redlist" and "greenlist". >> >> >> Offensive to Native Americans and Martians. >> > > Are you N

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 6:20 PM Larry Martell wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:08 PM Eike Lantzsch wrote: > >> >> I really like "redlist" and "greenlist". > > > Offensive to Native Americans and Martians. > Are you Native American, like my son? >

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 7:08 PM Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > I really like "redlist" and "greenlist". Offensive to Native Americans and Martians. >

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Friday, 19 June 2020 17:42:51 -04 davidson wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > On the danger of starting a flame war ... > > thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian > > Link? https://gwolf.org/2020/06/on-masters-and-slaves-whitelists-and-blacklists.html I th

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Friday, 19 June 2020 16:32:19 -04 Paul Johnson wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:14 PM Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > On the danger of starting a flame war ... > > thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian > > > > instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the te

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Friday, June 19, 2020 05:42:51 PM davidson wrote: > On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > On the danger of starting a flame war ... > > thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian > > Link? I'm not the OP (I'm sitting in the peanut gallery). Google worked, sort of -- ap

Re: technical terms overhaul

Gene Heskett wrote: > On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote: > > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > > What do you think? > > > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link? > > I got the impression the target is a more PC terminology in todays

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Friday 19 June 2020 15:37:51 Brian wrote: > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > What do you think? > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link? I got the impression the target is a more PC terminology in todays environment. Cheers, Gene Heskett -

Re: technical terms overhaul

> Most things described as master/slave aren't actually very well > matched by that metaphor. Source/sink, boss/worker, > dispatcher/receiver may be more accurate. In my understanding, master/slave and boss/worker describe pretty much the same (a relationship of power asymmetry, being generous, an

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Dan Ritter wrote: [snip] Most things described as master/slave aren't actually very well matched by that metaphor. Source/sink, boss/worker, Woah there. "Team Leader" / "Team Member", please. -- https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12518471 alexk already addressed your con

Re: technical terms overhaul

https://mywiki.wooledge.org/BashProgramming/04?action=diff&rev2=10&rev1=9 I went with "blocklist" because it's so close to the original term that it should be easily understood. Then, to match that, I chose "passlist" for the other one. It's a less obvious choice, and a different winner may even

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, 19 Jun 2020, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On the danger of starting a flame war ... thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian Link? instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: "allowlist" and "rejectlist" shitlist and shortlist. Santa's naugh

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 16:03:24 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:56:06PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:42:11 -0400, Greg Wooledge wrote: > > > > > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike La

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020, 15:14 Eike Lantzsch wrote: > On the danger of starting a flame war ... > thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian > > instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: > "allowlist" and "rejectlist" > instead of (for example on disk

Re: technical terms overhaul

On 6/19/2020 4:28 PM, Marco Möller wrote: On 19.06.20 21:14, Eike Lantzsch wrote: On the danger of starting a flame war ... thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: "allowlist" and "rejectlist" inste

Re: technical terms overhaul

Greg Wooledge wrote: > On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 08:37:51PM +0100, Brian wrote: > > On Fri 19 Jun 2020 at 15:14:26 -0400, Eike Lantzsch wrote: > > > > > What do you think? > > > > If we knew what you were talking about it would help. Link? > > If Eike is trying to start a social movement, this is

Re: technical terms overhaul

On Fri, Jun 19, 2020 at 2:14 PM Eike Lantzsch wrote: > On the danger of starting a flame war ... > thinking about the article by Gunnar Wolf on Planet Debian > > instead of "whitelist" and "blacklist" I would like to propose the terms: > "allowlist" and "rejectlist" > instead of (for example on d

  1   2   >