From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <tls@NetBSD.ORG>
Received: from mailbackend.panix.com (mailbackend.panix.com [166.84.1.89])
 by sourceware.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C97953865C2A
 for <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:37:54 +0000 (GMT)
DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 sourceware.org C97953865C2A
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org;
 dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=NetBSD.ORG
Authentication-Results: sourceware.org; spf=fail smtp.mailfrom=tls@NetBSD.ORG
Received: from panix5.panix.com (panix5.panix.com [166.84.1.5])
 by mailbackend.panix.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4BRXNy1gZyz1ddB;
 Wed, 12 Aug 2020 10:37:54 -0400 (EDT)
Received: by panix5.panix.com (Postfix, from userid 415)
 id 4BRXNy4hYMzfYm; Wed, 12 Aug 2020 10:37:54 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 10:37:54 -0400
From: Thor Lancelot Simon <tls@NetBSD.ORG>
To: mtk.manpages@gmail.com
Cc: Larry Dwyer <larryd.kbd@gmail.com>, Florian Weimer <fweimer@redhat.com>,
 linux-man <linux-man@vger.kernel.org>,
 Geoff Clare <gwc@opengroup.org>, austin-group-l@opengroup.org,
 Andrew Josey <ajosey@opengroup.org>,
 libc-alpha <libc-alpha@sourceware.org>, Elliot Hughes <enh@google.com>,
 Joseph Myers <joseph@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: Pseudoterminal terminology in POSIX
Message-ID: <20200812143754.GA27055@panix.com>
References: <CALxWeYrisuzEPVEHOQSFJ8G_=8-VTAOTNBquyszOZMid7YfT=Q@mail.gmail.com>
 <6425d636-7f48-3a73-ef0e-7bb5b991360c@gmail.com>
 <20200810135821.GA11918@panix.com>
 <3ace6e62-d3cc-ef7b-56b2-9b6b5c724d5b@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <3ace6e62-d3cc-ef7b-56b2-9b6b5c724d5b@gmail.com>
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00, KAM_DMARC_STATUS,
 RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL, SPF_HELO_NONE, SPF_NEUTRAL,
 TXREP autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on
 server2.sourceware.org
X-BeenThere: libc-alpha@sourceware.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Libc-alpha mailing list <libc-alpha.sourceware.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/options/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://sourceware.org/pipermail/libc-alpha/>
List-Post: <mailto:libc-alpha@sourceware.org>
List-Help: <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://sourceware.org/mailman/listinfo/libc-alpha>,
 <mailto:libc-alpha-request@sourceware.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 12 Aug 2020 14:37:56 -0000

On Tue, Aug 11, 2020 at 10:31:58AM +0200, Michael Kerrisk man-pages via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> On 8/10/20 3:58 PM, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 08, 2020 at 04:18:10PM -0700, Larry Dwyer via austin-group-l at The Open Group wrote:
> >> How about the "control" side and the "terminal" side (of the paired device
> >> files)?
> > 
> > How about the "pty side" and the "tty side"?  It seems hard to be more
> > neutral than that and we can be sure there is no ambiguity.
> 
> This is an option that came up in the glibc/Linux man-pages discussion.
> My objection is that I want proper nouns that one can use in a prose
> description of pseudoterminals.

Perhaps "lead" and "follower"?  This terminology comes from multiple unit
control systems on railroad locomotives (where it's been used interchangably
with the problematic "master" / "slave" for a long time) and I think it's
fairly descriptive of the situation with the pty control and terminal
units, too.