Talk:Pseudoterminal

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)


 * 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 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 and macOS. (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)

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)