What is USB?
-
@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. -
@etchedpixels @paul_ipv6 @brouhaha Thankfully, I've never needed to know more about network time synchronization than how to enable the daemon and which sub-pool of pool.ntp.org to point it at, so I'm not in much of a position to judge. If you are, I'll take your word for it.
-
R relay@relay.infosec.exchange shared this topic
