What is USB?
-
What is USB? Oh, that's easy! It's named for what it isn't.
USB is not Universal.
USB is not (entirely) Serial.
USB is not a Bus. -
What is USB? Oh, that's easy! It's named for what it isn't.
USB is not Universal.
USB is not (entirely) Serial.
USB is not a Bus.@brouhaha Unintuitively Shit Bastard
-
What is USB? Oh, that's easy! It's named for what it isn't.
USB is not Universal.
USB is not (entirely) Serial.
USB is not a Bus.@brouhaha named after the three emotions you feel trying to implement it : Unhappy. Sad. Bad.
-
What is USB? Oh, that's easy! It's named for what it isn't.
USB is not Universal.
USB is not (entirely) Serial.
USB is not a Bus.as soon as someone feels the need to include words like "universal", "simple", etc. into the name of the protocol, you can assume it's all lies.
-
What is USB? Oh, that's easy! It's named for what it isn't.
USB is not Universal.
USB is not (entirely) Serial.
USB is not a Bus.@brouhaha It's the orientation of the plug always:
UpSideBown -
as soon as someone feels the need to include words like "universal", "simple", etc. into the name of the protocol, you can assume it's all lies.
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha SMTP, SNMP . . . honorable mention for LDAP . . . yeah, checks-out.
-
What is USB? Oh, that's easy! It's named for what it isn't.
USB is not Universal.
USB is not (entirely) Serial.
USB is not a Bus.@brouhaha .. I have to ask .. "why it's not entierly serial' and 'why it's not a bus' ? What defines a 'bus' ?
-
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha SMTP, SNMP . . . honorable mention for LDAP . . . yeah, checks-out.
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha TFTP just about lives-up to its name, I guess, but that's the only one that comes to mind.
-
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha SMTP, SNMP . . . honorable mention for LDAP . . . yeah, checks-out.
it's important to be able to recognize the warning signs in technology.
from my days in modems: "Async. Analog. Serial. Three adjectives used to describe things that suck."
more recent warning signs: "Web 3.0", "Software Defined xxx", "Block Chain", and "Cloud"
-
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha SMTP, SNMP . . . honorable mention for LDAP . . . yeah, checks-out.
@0x0ddc0ffee @paul_ipv6 @brouhaha the real miracle is it's from Intel and doesn't have "advanced" in the name.
-
as soon as someone feels the need to include words like "universal", "simple", etc. into the name of the protocol, you can assume it's all lies.
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha Justas how consumer products with "Super" or "Hi-Fi" or "Pro" in the name _aren't_.
-
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha TFTP just about lives-up to its name, I guess, but that's the only one that comes to mind.
@0x0ddc0ffee @paul_ipv6 @brouhaha luckily X.509 and Bluetooth almost completely define their technology in their name…. They must be counter-examples?
-
What is USB? Oh, that's easy! It's named for what it isn't.
USB is not Universal.
USB is not (entirely) Serial.
USB is not a Bus.@brouhaha yeah, my kid just took one to school. Didn't look like anything even close.
-
as soon as someone feels the need to include words like "universal", "simple", etc. into the name of the protocol, you can assume it's all lies.
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha I wonder if it's because you put simple or lightweight in front of things when you indicate it's merely less bad than the previous attempt, whereas if it's already simple you don't need to mention it ?
-
@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha TFTP just about lives-up to its name, I guess, but that's the only one that comes to mind.
-
@brouhaha .. I have to ask .. "why it's not entierly serial' and 'why it's not a bus' ? What defines a 'bus' ?
@gilesgoat @brouhaha A bus is usually considered as being able to connect a variable number of devices without active bridges between them. USB originally worked that way, but USB 3.x SuperSpeed signals are strictly point-to-point.
As for serial, I think the objection is that there can be multiple data signals in each direction (legacy D+/D- and 1 or 2 SS pairs per direction). But each pair is self-clocking rather than synchronous, so I would still consider this serial not parallel.
-
@gilesgoat @brouhaha A bus is usually considered as being able to connect a variable number of devices without active bridges between them. USB originally worked that way, but USB 3.x SuperSpeed signals are strictly point-to-point.
As for serial, I think the objection is that there can be multiple data signals in each direction (legacy D+/D- and 1 or 2 SS pairs per direction). But each pair is self-clocking rather than synchronous, so I would still consider this serial not parallel.
-
@gilesgoat @brouhaha There are USB 3.x "hubs" but they are really more like switches. (And I think even USB 2.0 hubs work like switches for downstream devices that aren't High Speed.)
-
@gilesgoat @brouhaha A bus is usually considered as being able to connect a variable number of devices without active bridges between them. USB originally worked that way, but USB 3.x SuperSpeed signals are strictly point-to-point.
As for serial, I think the objection is that there can be multiple data signals in each direction (legacy D+/D- and 1 or 2 SS pairs per direction). But each pair is self-clocking rather than synchronous, so I would still consider this serial not parallel.
@bwh @gilesgoat
USB never worked that way. USB was _always_, from even before 1.0, point-to-point links. It was never possible to connect two devices to a single host port without a hub containing active electronics. -
@bwh @gilesgoat
USB never worked that way. USB was _always_, from even before 1.0, point-to-point links. It was never possible to connect two devices to a single host port without a hub containing active electronics.
