Using master/slave is correct Star Wars Kid has no idea of the history of this.
operating systems were booted off the master disc, anything else on the bus was a slave device
To move data at the speed required (because processors were actually slower than floppies back then), a special bus master circuit took over the whole bus, bypassed the CPU and wrote directly to RAM. You could only have one bus master active at any one time A bus arbitration scheme was used to decide which system attached to the bus was acting as a master, and there could be several of these potential bus masters.
The words primary and secondary are not applicable in a system of multiple master/slaves
Fat Cunt has clearly never seen anything older than a PC
If I remember correctly, you need a master to have a slave.
Can't have a slave without a master, doesn't work.
If I remember correctly, you need a master to have a slave.
asynchronous equal nodes would work too, but they would need to operative cooperatively, that's best handled by using the most superior architecture available
Yeah, quite literally it is the master, and the others are slaves. They are physically wired to be slaves to the master. Why would he want to obscure this fact? If the terms can't be used to accurately describe this, then it means that niggers were never slaves, and jews were never their masters. He should rejoice.
(post is archived)