Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[bch]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 13:09 bch  wrote:

>
>
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:18 Greg A. Woods  wrote:
>
>> At Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:35:46 +0200, Kamil Rytarowski 
>> wrote:
>> Subject: Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current
>> >
>> > Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
>> > 'blocklisting' before.
>>
>> Popularity != fairness; and so on
>>
>> This article from 2018 might help point out the inherent issues with the
>> choice of certain terms:
>>
>> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/
>>
>
> From the cited article:
>
> > does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves to legitimize
> and perpetuate it.
>
> I looked up the origins and usages of “blacklist” the other day and see
> references to Kings listing their enemies on a “black list”[0][1], etc, but
> no indication of racism (nb: “black ball” or “blackball” (surprisingly to
> me, predate blacklist) do also seem to contraindicate racist undertones,
> but interestingly bring us the word “ostracize”, descended from the Greek
> pottery device used to cast votes - but I digress[2]).
>
> I’m 100% for eliminating master/slave (for leader/follower), as an example
> of politically charged verbiage, but I’m not convinced “blacklist” falls
> into the same category at all. I think the intent is in the right place,
> but just misapplied.
>

I hasten to add: it’s not even clear to me racism was at all a motivating
factor - given that, I speak out of turn regarding intention and proper
application. Apologies to @christos for that.




> Interested to hear differently.
>
> -bch
>
> [0]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting
>
> [1]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing
>
> [2]
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism
>
>
>
>> On the other hand there are deliberate biases in choice of certain terms
>> since they are indeed intended to indicate positive and negative
>> opposites, however the more "neutral" one can be in choosing such terms,
>> then the longer those terms might hope to hold out as inoffensive to as
>> many people as possible.
>>
>> Personally I prefer "allow"/"deny", but I'm not sure what lists of
>> things that are "allowed" or "denied" should more generically be called.
>> We do have one example of such lists already supported in NetBSD:
>> /etc/hosts.allow and /etc/hosts.deny
>>
>> --
>> Greg A. Woods 
>>
>> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675   RoboHack 
>> Planix, Inc.  Avoncote Farms 
>>
>

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Michael Cheponis]

$ grep -i ^black /usr/share/dict/words | wc
  92  92 976
$ grep -i ^white /usr/share/dict/words | wc
  70  70 725
It's an uphill climb, but naming
https://martinfowler.com/bliki/TwoHardThings.html is one of two hard
things.  Yes, we can do better.


On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:44 PM Christos Zoulas 
wrote:

> Hi Marc,
>
> When I wrote this in 2015 I did not consider the terms blacklist/whitelist
> offensive,
> or associated them with race. If as was going to name the program today I
> would
> have chosen differently; perhaps I would have chosen 'denylist' instead of
> 'blocklist',
> (I smirk because the spell-checker autocorrected blocklist to blacklist
> even when I had
> it in quotes and I had to change it back), but I would not have called it
> blacklist.
>
> I made the poor naming choice in 2015, and I needed to fix it. I decided
> to do it quickly,
> and I did not want to have a discussion about it -- I was going to do it
> anyway. I believe
> that as insignificant and annoying that change might seem to some, it is a
> move in the
> right direction and I hope that it will inspire/encourage others to make
> similar changes
> where appropriate.
>
> We should be all doing whatever we can to correct social/race/gender/sex
> injustices/prejudices around us, and every little bit helps.
>
> Best,
>
> christos
>
>
>
> > On Jun 15, 2020, at 3:02 PM, Marc Balmer  wrote:
> >
> > And you just do that based on you own opinion, without previous
> discussion, breaking existing confugurations, and all you have to offer is
> a „sorry for the inconvenience“?
> >
> > That inconvenience was not needed and nobody asked for it.
> >
> >> Am 15.06.2020 um 04:02 schrieb Christos Zoulas :
> >>
> >> 
> >> Hello folks,
> >>
> >> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> >> you should rename things accordingly:
> >>
> >>   - rc.conf variable
> >>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
> >>   - npf table name
> >>
> >> Apologies for the inconvenience,
> >>
> >> christos
>
>

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[bch]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 12:18 Greg A. Woods  wrote:

> At Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:35:46 +0200, Kamil Rytarowski 
> wrote:
> Subject: Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current
> >
> > Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
> > 'blocklisting' before.
>
> Popularity != fairness; and so on
>
> This article from 2018 might help point out the inherent issues with the
> choice of certain terms:
>
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/
>

>From the cited article:

> does not merely reflect a racist culture, but also serves to legitimize
and perpetuate it.

I looked up the origins and usages of “blacklist” the other day and see
references to Kings listing their enemies on a “black list”[0][1], etc, but
no indication of racism (nb: “black ball” or “blackball” (surprisingly to
me, predate blacklist) do also seem to contraindicate racist undertones,
but interestingly bring us the word “ostracize”, descended from the Greek
pottery device used to cast votes - but I digress[2]).

I’m 100% for eliminating master/slave (for leader/follower), as an example
of politically charged verbiage, but I’m not convinced “blacklist” falls
into the same category at all. I think the intent is in the right place,
but just misapplied.

Interested to hear differently.

-bch

[0]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting

[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackballing

[2]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostracism



> On the other hand there are deliberate biases in choice of certain terms
> since they are indeed intended to indicate positive and negative
> opposites, however the more "neutral" one can be in choosing such terms,
> then the longer those terms might hope to hold out as inoffensive to as
> many people as possible.
>
> Personally I prefer "allow"/"deny", but I'm not sure what lists of
> things that are "allowed" or "denied" should more generically be called.
> We do have one example of such lists already supported in NetBSD:
> /etc/hosts.allow and /etc/hosts.deny
>
> --
> Greg A. Woods 
>
> Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675   RoboHack 
> Planix, Inc.  Avoncote Farms 
>

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Christos Zoulas]

https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/15/github_replaces_master_with_main/ 


christos

> On Jun 15, 2020, at 2:35 PM, Kamil Rytarowski  wrote:
> 
> Signed PGP part
> On 15.06.2020 20:05, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
>> Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>> 
>>> Hello folks,
>>> 
>>> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
>>> you should rename things accordingly:
>>> 
>>> - rc.conf variable
>>> - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>>> - npf table name
>>> 
>>> Apologies for the inconvenience,
>> 
>> I doubt that you can express a concept of exclusion without offending
>> anyone. E.g. the new term reminds me of blockades.
>> 
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_blockades
>> 
> 
> Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
> 'blocklisting' before.
> 
> According to grep.app: blacklisting 4560 results vs blocklisting 51,
> while blocklisting is (or was) more associated with other terms like
> listing block coverage (as opposed to branch coverage).
> 
> New name/term is confusing.
> 
> 
> 



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: commit-guidelines (was Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current)

[Christos Zoulas]

+ core.

christos

> On Jun 16, 2020, at 3:31 PM, Alexander Nasonov  wrote:
> 
> Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Alexander Nasonov  wrote:
>>> 
>>> If my reading of the current commit guideline is correct, a case
>>> of renaming already released application doesn't fall into the
>>> "obvious" fix because some people can possibly object to breaking
>>> backward compatibility.
>> 
>> You are correct, and this is why I discussed it with core before doing it. 
>> In fact
>> the name "block" instead of "deny" was suggested by a core member: I chose
>> "block" over "deny" because of similarity to the previous name,
>> and because some of the API's start with "bl_" and would not need to be
>> modified. If "deny" was chosen instead, these would probably need to be
>> changed to "dl_" and that prefix is associated with the dynamic linker.
> 
> Clause 4 (and probably others) needs a serious overhaul to make
> sure that all cases that needs a review reach everyone who has a
> voice (and who can potentially object) before involving the Core,
> if necessary.
> 
> The current wording isn't inclusive, period.
> 
> --
> Alex



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

commit-guidelines (was Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current)

[Alexander Nasonov]

Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 
> 
> > On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Alexander Nasonov  wrote:
> > 
> > If my reading of the current commit guideline is correct, a case
> > of renaming already released application doesn't fall into the
> > "obvious" fix because some people can possibly object to breaking
> > backward compatibility.
> 
> You are correct, and this is why I discussed it with core before doing it. In 
> fact
> the name "block" instead of "deny" was suggested by a core member: I chose
> "block" over "deny" because of similarity to the previous name,
> and because some of the API's start with "bl_" and would not need to be
> modified. If "deny" was chosen instead, these would probably need to be
> changed to "dl_" and that prefix is associated with the dynamic linker.

Clause 4 (and probably others) needs a serious overhaul to make
sure that all cases that needs a review reach everyone who has a
voice (and who can potentially object) before involving the Core,
if necessary.

The current wording isn't inclusive, period.

-- 
Alex

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Christos Zoulas]

> On Jun 16, 2020, at 2:17 PM, Alexander Nasonov  wrote:
> 
> If my reading of the current commit guideline is correct, a case
> of renaming already released application doesn't fall into the
> "obvious" fix because some people can possibly object to breaking
> backward compatibility.

You are correct, and this is why I discussed it with core before doing it. In 
fact
the name "block" instead of "deny" was suggested by a core member: I chose
"block" over "deny" because of similarity to the previous name,
and because some of the API's start with "bl_" and would not need to be
modified. If "deny" was chosen instead, these would probably need to be
changed to "dl_" and that prefix is associated with the dynamic linker.

Best,

christos


signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Alexander Nasonov]

Christos Zoulas wrote:
> I think that you would agree that owners of applications should be
> allowed to name them as they please. And that me renaming my application
> causes equal "abuse" (inconvenience) to everyone.

If my reading of the current commit guideline is correct, a case
of renaming already released application doesn't fall into the
"obvious" fix because some people can possibly object to breaking
backward compatibility.

$NetBSD: commit-guidelines,v 1.3 2005/10/11 03:14:08 jschauma Exp $
...
4.  The more intrusive your changes are the higher is the level
 of required prior approval.

- "Obvious" fixes can be committed without any prior
  discussion or review. (The definition of "obvious" in the
  GCC Project is: "could not possibly cause anyone to
  object." We adopt this definition here)

- All other (i. e. "non-obvious") fixes *should* have a
  review.

- Implementing (significant) new features requires a prior
  discussion on an appropriate technical mailing list.

- Changing existing interfaces in libraries or in the kernel
  requires prior approval by Core.

-- 
Alex

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Kamil Rytarowski]

On 16.06.2020 16:27, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> In article <02813400-41f9-cec9-84d0-ed3ccd2a8...@netbsd.org>,
> Kamil Rytarowski   wrote:
>> -=-=-=-=-=-
>> Perpetuating this Western-centric stereotype in such renames is abusive
>> to the white East people, that used to be on the black skin side of the
>> human history (Slavic ethnicity has etymology in the word 'slave' - do
>> you want to rename us?). Putting it into throats of the rest of the
>> global East world is offensive. At least the renames won't take away the
>> title of "the White Negroes of Europe" as given with brotherhood and
>> respect by Jean-Jacques Dessalines to so called Polanders (and
>> perpetuated in the Hayti constitution from 1805). The fact that
>> Americans did not follow the Last Will of the founding father of United
>> States Kosciuszko (Polish by origin) of liberating slaves (Jefferson the
>> 3rd president preferred to keep the slaves for better profit) and
>> instead vandalized his memorial in the recent days is just meaningful.
>>
> 
> I think that you would agree that owners of applications should be
> allowed to name them as they please. And that me renaming my application
> causes equal "abuse" (inconvenience) to everyone.
> 
> christos
> 

Quod scripsi, scripsi.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Christos Zoulas]

In article <02813400-41f9-cec9-84d0-ed3ccd2a8...@netbsd.org>,
Kamil Rytarowski   wrote:
>-=-=-=-=-=-
>Perpetuating this Western-centric stereotype in such renames is abusive
>to the white East people, that used to be on the black skin side of the
>human history (Slavic ethnicity has etymology in the word 'slave' - do
>you want to rename us?). Putting it into throats of the rest of the
>global East world is offensive. At least the renames won't take away the
>title of "the White Negroes of Europe" as given with brotherhood and
>respect by Jean-Jacques Dessalines to so called Polanders (and
>perpetuated in the Hayti constitution from 1805). The fact that
>Americans did not follow the Last Will of the founding father of United
>States Kosciuszko (Polish by origin) of liberating slaves (Jefferson the
>3rd president preferred to keep the slaves for better profit) and
>instead vandalized his memorial in the recent days is just meaningful.
>

I think that you would agree that owners of applications should be
allowed to name them as they please. And that me renaming my application
causes equal "abuse" (inconvenience) to everyone.

christos

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Kamil Rytarowski]

On 15.06.2020 21:44, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Hi Marc,
> 
> When I wrote this in 2015 I did not consider the terms blacklist/whitelist 
> offensive,
> or associated them with race.

Perpetuating this Western-centric stereotype in such renames is abusive
to the white East people, that used to be on the black skin side of the
human history (Slavic ethnicity has etymology in the word 'slave' - do
you want to rename us?). Putting it into throats of the rest of the
global East world is offensive. At least the renames won't take away the
title of "the White Negroes of Europe" as given with brotherhood and
respect by Jean-Jacques Dessalines to so called Polanders (and
perpetuated in the Hayti constitution from 1805). The fact that
Americans did not follow the Last Will of the founding father of United
States Kosciuszko (Polish by origin) of liberating slaves (Jefferson the
3rd president preferred to keep the slaves for better profit) and
instead vandalized his memorial in the recent days is just meaningful.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Mayuresh]

On Tue, Jun 16, 2020 at 07:43:07AM +0200, Marc Balmer wrote:
> Well, obviously anything with the word black in it must be considered
> racist these days.

Hmm... May be.

Out of the 4k+ times the word occurred majority occurrences were for the
black as in color (say of the terminal). May be we should invent a better
word for that - at least till such newly invented word starts being
regarded as racist in a few years time! Then, of course, we'll choose yet
another word and so on.

May be we should keep a watch on physicists who use the term blackhole and
also see if they want to `correct' all the text written by the likes of
Einstein to Stephen Hawking on the topic.

Mayuresh

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Matthias Petermann]

Hello,

Am 16.06.2020 um 07:43 schrieb Marc Balmer:




Am 16.06.2020 um 04:53 schrieb Mayuresh :

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:44:22PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:

We should be all doing whatever we can to correct social/race/gender/sex
injustices/prejudices around us, and every little bit helps.


I am a great fan of bla^Hocklistd and I'd be happily using it even if you
name it say timbuktud.

But I think we are stretching above argument a bit too far. By any stretch
of imagination I couldn't find any trace of racist link in a very commonly
used word in Comp Sc like blacklist. Even tried searching its origin[1]
and doesn't look like it has anything to do with any race.

Just a quick grep in an arbitrary snapshot of the source tree of NetBSD
shows the word 'black' appearing at 4146 places...

There are `blackholes', `blackballs', `blacklist' (other than in
bla^Hocklistd's code), blackfin (of course some like this are not names
chosen by NetBSD but of 3rd party hardware, such as a processor or a
company name), `black magic', `blackjack', `blackboard', `blackbook',
`blackbox', `blackcrow', `blackberry', `black cathedral', `black
helicopter', `black tree' ...

And I am done only with 6% of the grep output.



Well, obviously anything with the word black in it must be considered racist 
these days.


I think it's not about words that contain "black", but because of their 
meaning put "black" in a negative context. Blackberry, for example, does 
not serve the negative connection - except for those who do not like the 
fruit. Or if, as a shareholder, you didn't make the jump in 2008. 
Blacklist discriminates over color. I admit - I've never thought about 
that either. And my very first reaction yesterday was also rather mixed 
- I hadn't expected such discussions on a technical mailing list of my 
favorite operating system, and I hadn't missed it either. However - I 
first read what others have to say about it and there were some 
interesting facts that convinced me that such discussions are important 
on the one hand and that it is also right to use language more carefully.


Finally, a personal remark: I am pleased that it is possible in NetBSD 
to hold such discussions at such a high level and without personal 
insults! That makes it a great operating system with a great community 
again!


Kind regards
Matthias

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Marc Balmer]

> Am 16.06.2020 um 04:53 schrieb Mayuresh :
> 
> On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:44:22PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> We should be all doing whatever we can to correct social/race/gender/sex
>> injustices/prejudices around us, and every little bit helps.
> 
> I am a great fan of bla^Hocklistd and I'd be happily using it even if you
> name it say timbuktud.
> 
> But I think we are stretching above argument a bit too far. By any stretch
> of imagination I couldn't find any trace of racist link in a very commonly
> used word in Comp Sc like blacklist. Even tried searching its origin[1]
> and doesn't look like it has anything to do with any race.
> 
> Just a quick grep in an arbitrary snapshot of the source tree of NetBSD
> shows the word 'black' appearing at 4146 places...
> 
> There are `blackholes', `blackballs', `blacklist' (other than in
> bla^Hocklistd's code), blackfin (of course some like this are not names
> chosen by NetBSD but of 3rd party hardware, such as a processor or a
> company name), `black magic', `blackjack', `blackboard', `blackbook',
> `blackbox', `blackcrow', `blackberry', `black cathedral', `black
> helicopter', `black tree' ...
> 
> And I am done only with 6% of the grep output.
> 

Well, obviously anything with the word black in it must be considered racist 
these days.

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Mayuresh]

On Mon, Jun 15, 2020 at 03:44:22PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> We should be all doing whatever we can to correct social/race/gender/sex
> injustices/prejudices around us, and every little bit helps.

I am a great fan of bla^Hocklistd and I'd be happily using it even if you
name it say timbuktud.

But I think we are stretching above argument a bit too far. By any stretch
of imagination I couldn't find any trace of racist link in a very commonly
used word in Comp Sc like blacklist. Even tried searching its origin[1]
and doesn't look like it has anything to do with any race.

Just a quick grep in an arbitrary snapshot of the source tree of NetBSD
shows the word 'black' appearing at 4146 places...

There are `blackholes', `blackballs', `blacklist' (other than in
bla^Hocklistd's code), blackfin (of course some like this are not names
chosen by NetBSD but of 3rd party hardware, such as a processor or a
company name), `black magic', `blackjack', `blackboard', `blackbook',
`blackbox', `blackcrow', `blackberry', `black cathedral', `black
helicopter', `black tree' ...

And I am done only with 6% of the grep output.

Mayuresh

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blacklisting

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Jared McNeill]

Thanks Christos.

On Sun, 14 Jun 2020, Christos Zoulas wrote:



Hello folks,

I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
you should rename things accordingly:

- rc.conf variable
- /var/db/blacklist.db file
- npf table name

Apologies for the inconvenience,

christos

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[maya]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:01:57PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> you should rename things accordingly:
> 
>   - rc.conf variable
>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>   - npf table name
> 
> Apologies for the inconvenience,
> 
> christos

Thanks for doing this.
BTW, Christos has also committed handling to postinstall, so most of the
inconvenience can be handled in regular updating steps.

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Jason Thorpe]

> On Jun 14, 2020, at 7:01 PM, Christos Zoulas  wrote:
> 
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> you should rename things accordingly:
> 
>   - rc.conf variable
>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>   - npf table name
> 
> Apologies for the inconvenience,

Thanks for doing this, Christos.

-- thorpej

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[nia]

On Sun, Jun 14, 2020 at 10:01:57PM -0400, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> you should rename things accordingly:
> 
>   - rc.conf variable
>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>   - npf table name
> 
> Apologies for the inconvenience,
> 
> christos

Cool, thanks.

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Nikita Gillmann]

Thanks.

On 2020-06-15 04:01, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> Hello folks,
>
> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> you should rename things accordingly:
>
>   - rc.conf variable
>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>   - npf table name
>
> Apologies for the inconvenience,
>
> christos

re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[gary]

>
> christos can name his software as he likes.  if you don't like
> it then don't use it, but don't tell him what he can do with
> his own code.

   With that point I certainly agree. I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Gary Duzan

re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[matthew green]

the discussion here is pretty disappointing.


christos can name his software as he likes.  if you don't like
it then don't use it, but don't tell him what he can do with
his own code.

if you'd written blocklist you'd have a voice in naming it.


.mrg.

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Alexander Nasonov]

Greg A. Woods wrote:
> At Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:35:46 +0200, Kamil Rytarowski  wrote:
> Subject: Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current
> >
> > Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
> > 'blocklisting' before.
> 
> Popularity != fairness; and so on

American English != International English as used by computer scientists

> This article from 2018 might help point out the inherent issues with the
> choice of certain terms:
> 
>   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

This is a commentary on one particular trend in a niche field
(namely, literature surrounding predatory publishing). I don't
see how it's related to general use of the terms whitelist and
blacklist.

> On the other hand there are deliberate biases in choice of certain terms
> since they are indeed intended to indicate positive and negative
> opposites, however the more "neutral" one can be in choosing such terms,
> then the longer those terms might hope to hold out as inoffensive to as
> many people as possible.

What does "white" indicate in the White House?

https://time.com/4423691/michelle-obama-dnc-speech-history/

-- 
Alex

re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[matthew green]

Christos Zoulas writes:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> you should rename things accordingly:
> 
>   - rc.conf variable
>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>   - npf table name
> 
> Apologies for the inconvenience,

thank you.


.mrg.

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[gary]

> At Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:35:46 +0200, Kamil Rytarowski 
> wrote:
> Subject: Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current
>>
>> Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
>> 'blocklisting' before.
>
> Popularity != fairness; and so on
>
> This article from 2018 might help point out the inherent issues with the
> choice of certain terms:
>
>   https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/
>
> On the other hand there are deliberate biases in choice of certain terms
> since they are indeed intended to indicate positive and negative
> opposites, however the more "neutral" one can be in choosing such terms,
> then the longer those terms might hope to hold out as inoffensive to as
> many people as possible.

   Black is bad because the dark is black, we don't see well in the dark,
and things used to come out in the dark to try to eat us. White is good
because light is white, we can see when there is light, and we get to
go hunt things we can see to eat them. None of this has anything to do
with skin color or race. It is way deeper than race. Trying to make it
about race is just pandering to those espousing a particular ideology,
as exemplified by the linked article.

   To take the matter from a different angle, there has been a rather
popular TV show in the US called "The Blacklist" since 2013, and it was
just renewed in February. If there has been any significant controversy
about the name of this show then it has not been significant enough to
warrant a mention on the show's Wikipedia page. If there is no real
offense to be taken from that, then surely the likelihood of an obscure
operating creating significant offense is proportionally small, and a
change to prevent such hypothetical offense could reasonably be
considered gratuitous.

  Gary Duzan

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Chris Hanson]

On Jun 15, 2020, at 12:44 PM, Christos Zoulas  wrote:
> 
> I made the poor naming choice in 2015, and I needed to fix it. I decided to 
> do it quickly,

Thank you!

Personally, I prefer the terms "allow" and "deny" as they're already used 
elsewhere and can be understood entirely in isolation. (E.g. they don't need 
etymology such as the previous terms, and they also can't be confused with 
blocklist implyign "a list of blocks.") But any move in the right direction is 
a good move. :)

  -- Chris

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Christos Zoulas]

Hi Marc,

When I wrote this in 2015 I did not consider the terms blacklist/whitelist 
offensive,
or associated them with race. If as was going to name the program today I would
have chosen differently; perhaps I would have chosen 'denylist' instead of 
'blocklist',
(I smirk because the spell-checker autocorrected blocklist to blacklist even 
when I had
it in quotes and I had to change it back), but I would not have called it 
blacklist.

I made the poor naming choice in 2015, and I needed to fix it. I decided to do 
it quickly,
and I did not want to have a discussion about it -- I was going to do it 
anyway. I believe
that as insignificant and annoying that change might seem to some, it is a move 
in the
right direction and I hope that it will inspire/encourage others to make 
similar changes
where appropriate.

We should be all doing whatever we can to correct social/race/gender/sex
injustices/prejudices around us, and every little bit helps.

Best,

christos



> On Jun 15, 2020, at 3:02 PM, Marc Balmer  wrote:
> 
> And you just do that based on you own opinion, without previous discussion, 
> breaking existing confugurations, and all you have to offer is a „sorry for 
> the inconvenience“?
> 
> That inconvenience was not needed and nobody asked for it.
> 
>> Am 15.06.2020 um 04:02 schrieb Christos Zoulas :
>> 
>> 
>> Hello folks,
>> 
>> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
>> you should rename things accordingly:
>> 
>>   - rc.conf variable
>>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>>   - npf table name
>> 
>> Apologies for the inconvenience,
>> 
>> christos



signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Kamil Rytarowski]

This article notes that blocklist is a confusing term as a list of
blocks and notes a proposal of denylist.

On 15.06.2020 21:10, Christos Zoulas wrote:
> https://www.theregister.com/2020/06/15/github_replaces_master_with_main/
> 
> christos
> 
>> On Jun 15, 2020, at 2:35 PM, Kamil Rytarowski > > wrote:
>>
>> Signed PGP part
>> On 15.06.2020 20:05, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
>>> Christos Zoulas wrote:

 Hello folks,

 I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
 you should rename things accordingly:

 - rc.conf variable
 - /var/db/blacklist.db file
 - npf table name

 Apologies for the inconvenience,
>>>
>>> I doubt that you can express a concept of exclusion without offending
>>> anyone. E.g. the new term reminds me of blockades.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_blockades
>>>
>>
>> Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
>> 'blocklisting' before.
>>
>> According to grep.app: blacklisting 4560 results vs blocklisting 51,
>> while blocklisting is (or was) more associated with other terms like
>> listing block coverage (as opposed to branch coverage).
>>
>> New name/term is confusing.
>>
>>
>> 
> 




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Greg A. Woods]

At Mon, 15 Jun 2020 20:35:46 +0200, Kamil Rytarowski  wrote:
Subject: Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current
>
> Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
> 'blocklisting' before.

Popularity != fairness; and so on

This article from 2018 might help point out the inherent issues with the
choice of certain terms:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6148600/

On the other hand there are deliberate biases in choice of certain terms
since they are indeed intended to indicate positive and negative
opposites, however the more "neutral" one can be in choosing such terms,
then the longer those terms might hope to hold out as inoffensive to as
many people as possible.

Personally I prefer "allow"/"deny", but I'm not sure what lists of
things that are "allowed" or "denied" should more generically be called.
We do have one example of such lists already supported in NetBSD:
/etc/hosts.allow and /etc/hosts.deny

--
Greg A. Woods 

Kelowna, BC +1 250 762-7675   RoboHack 
Planix, Inc.  Avoncote Farms 


pgpXkBT7UamvB.pgp
Description: OpenPGP Digital Signature

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Marc Balmer]

And you just do that based on you own opinion, without previous discussion, 
breaking existing confugurations, and all you have to offer is a „sorry for the 
inconvenience“?

That inconvenience was not needed and nobody asked for it.

> Am 15.06.2020 um 04:02 schrieb Christos Zoulas :
> 
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> you should rename things accordingly:
> 
>- rc.conf variable
>- /var/db/blacklist.db file
>- npf table name
> 
> Apologies for the inconvenience,
> 
> christos

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Kamil Rytarowski]

On 15.06.2020 20:05, Alexander Nasonov wrote:
> Christos Zoulas wrote:
>>
>> Hello folks,
>>
>> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
>> you should rename things accordingly:
>>
>>  - rc.conf variable
>>  - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>>  - npf table name
>>
>> Apologies for the inconvenience,
> 
> I doubt that you can express a concept of exclusion without offending
> anyone. E.g. the new term reminds me of blockades.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_blockades
> 

Whitelist/blacklist is a regular term in computing. I have never seen
'blocklisting' before.

According to grep.app: blacklisting 4560 results vs blocklisting 51,
while blocklisting is (or was) more associated with other terms like
listing block coverage (as opposed to branch coverage).

New name/term is confusing.



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Marc Balmer]

Maybe we should remove support for black-and-white (b/w) displays as well. Only 
supporting poc‘s, panels of color.

And, fortune -o, oh boy...

> Am 15.06.2020 um 20:05 schrieb Alexander Nasonov :
> 
> Christos Zoulas wrote:
>> 
>> Hello folks,
>> 
>> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
>> you should rename things accordingly:
>> 
>>- rc.conf variable
>>- /var/db/blacklist.db file
>>- npf table name
>> 
>> Apologies for the inconvenience,
> 
> I doubt that you can express a concept of exclusion without offending
> anyone. E.g. the new term reminds me of blockades.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_blockades
> 
> -- 
> Alex

Re: blacklist -> blocklist in current

[Alexander Nasonov]

Christos Zoulas wrote:
> 
> Hello folks,
> 
> I've renamed blacklist to blocklist, so if you are currently using it,
> you should rename things accordingly:
> 
>   - rc.conf variable
>   - /var/db/blacklist.db file
>   - npf table name
> 
> Apologies for the inconvenience,

I doubt that you can express a concept of exclusion without offending
anyone. E.g. the new term reminds me of blockades.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_historical_blockades

-- 
Alex