> No, Client/Server is not the same as Master/Slave.
To be fair though, "Primary" and "Secondary" is not the same as Master/Slave either. Primary implies that it'll be used first (say by a front-end), which isn't necessarily true. You may in fact spread your reads across a Master/Slave.
Parent/Child is also different to Master/Slave in some instances, as it implies that the "child" was spawned by the parent. If you've got Master/Slave replication on your database instances (for example) that's almost certainly untrue. For processes we already tend to use parent/child anyway.
I'm not opposed to the discussion as such, it's just I think it's a bit of a waste of time - especially given the "improved" replacements don't seem to apply nearly as broadly.