[autoexec]

> A master/slave database setup gets its meaning from the master telling the slaves what to do.

This I agree with. I suppose my problem is that whatever you decide to call it, that dynamic doesn't change. Although I've yet to see an article on the subject of the use of Master/Slave in computing which doesn't bring up America's historical use of slaves, the dynamic being described is older than humanity itself.

Simply calling a thing something else is never going to be enough when the problem people have is with the very concept of the thing being renamed. It's doomed to fall victim to the euphemism treadmill. No matter how abstract and convoluted our terminology gets trying to avoid talking about it, what we're describing is still right there in our faces. Rather than try to pretend the very concept of Slaves and Masters doesn't exist, it'll save a hell of a lot of time to just continue to call it what it is plainly.