You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
16 points

They are not bad at this. You are bad at understanding it.

I work with this stuff, and I do understand it. Some of my colleagues are actively participating in USB-IF workgroups, although not the ones responsible for naming end user facing things. They come to me for advice when those other workgroups changed some names retroactively again and we need to make sure we are still backwards compatible with things that rely on those names and that we are not confusing our customers more than necessary.

That is why I am very confident in claiming those naming schemes are bad.

“don’t even bother learning it” is my advice for normal end users, and I do stand by it.

But the names are not hard if you bother to learn them.

Never said it is hard.

It is more complex than it needs to be.

It is internally inconsistent.

Names get changed retroactively with new spec releases.

None of that is hard to learn, just not worth the effort.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-3 points

They come to me for advice when those other workgroups changed some names retroactively again

Can you give a specific example of this?

I’d love to believe all your ethos arguments if you could give me some logos.

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

They’re bad because manufacturers want to pass their usb 2.0 gear as “usb 3.0 compliant”, which it technically is, and their usb 3.0 gear as “usb 3.2” because 3.2 Gen 1x1 is also 5gbps.

Also the whole alternate mode is awesome, but cheap hub chips don’t bother trying to support it and the only people who do are the laptop ports so they can save $.40 on a separate hdmi port.

And don’t get me started on all the USB-c chargers that only put out 1.5a because it’s just a normal 7805 on the back end.

permalink
report
parent
reply
0 points

They’re bad because manufacturers want to pass their usb 2.0 gear as “usb 3.0 compliant”, which it technically is, and their usb 3.0 gear as “usb 3.2” because 3.2 Gen 1x1 is also 5gbps.

The USB X.X is just the version of the standard and doesn’t mean anything for the capabilities of a physical device.

When a new standard comes out it superceeds the old one. Devices are always designed and certified according to the current standard.

Soooo…What are you talking about?

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

I’m talking about using the standard traditionally to denote the performance of the connection.

You don’t go around talking about your “Usb 3.0 device” that runs at 480mbps unless you’re trying to be a massive dickhole.

That’s what I’m talking about.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


Community stats

  • 18K

    Monthly active users

  • 11K

    Posts

  • 517K

    Comments