Talk:Pseudoterminal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Software (assessed as Low-importance).

Linux Low‑importance

	Linux portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Linux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Master/slave vs main/server

Someone added to article "main" as an alternative term to "master" and "server" as an alternative term to "slave". No cite was provided. I understand that many people today consider the "master"/"slave" terminology to be inappropriate, and want to change to alternative terms. But, I don't think this article should do that unless we have WP:RS for what the alternative is. That RS has to be about pseudoterminals specifically, because there is no single alternative to the master/slave pairing, different alternatives are used in different contexts (e.g. primary/secondary, leader/follower, parent/child, etc), and we'd need RS to tell us which is the standard alternative (if there is one) for pseudoterminals in particular. Mr248 (talk) 11:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Without "rewriting history" and losing historical documentation searchability, there isn't really a "proper" way to rewrite this until there's newer documentation for pseudoterminals that use the newer language. Even then, there should be a banner (maybe too much) or something denoting that this technology, older documentation and this article used to use the non-inclusive language and document the then "historical terms" that were used to refer to the different parts of the specification/components/relationships of pseudoterminals.

As an example citing the merge[1] to the Linux kernel, where the inclusive terms were first introduced as a guideline state as such:

Exceptions for introducing new usage is to maintain a userspace ABI/API,
or when updating code for an existing (as of 2020) hardware or protocol
specification that mandates those terms. For new specifications
translate specification usage of the terminology to the kernel coding
standard where possible.

So basically Linux kernel keeps the old historical naming where it's "load bearing" and when the older specifications use the historical terminology. They only uses the newer terminology when there's new code and new specifications.

Thusly, if we take some inspiration from the Linux kernel naming guidelines, then we should not move to any other naming scheme as the current names (salve/master) are currently (as of 2023-04-04) still used in the current up to date documentation at least in Linux[2] and macOS[3]. (this is the currently shipped man-page in macOS 13.2.1)

I've tried to be as thorough and to give a good overview as possible as what we're working with here. Permikk (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Using google group discussion as source

"Pseudoterminals were present in the DEC PDP-6 Timesharing Monitor at least as early as 1967, and were used to implement batch processing." - The source used for this quote is from google group discussion where a user has shared his personal view without a valid reference. Hence unreliable.--Asad29591 (talk) 05:22, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]