What is USB?

[dysfun@social.treehouse.systems]

@brouhaha Unintuitively Shit Bastard

[ipg@wetdry.world]

@brouhaha named after the three emotions you feel trying to implement it : Unhappy. Sad. Bad.

[paul_ipv6@infosec.exchange]

@brouhaha

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.

[wooramel@furries.club]

@brouhaha It's the orientation of the plug always:
UpSideBown

[0x0ddc0ffee@infosec.exchange]

@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha SMTP, SNMP . . . honorable mention for LDAP . . . yeah, checks-out.

[gilesgoat@toot.wales]

@brouhaha .. I have to ask .. "why it's not entierly serial' and 'why it's not a bus' ? What defines a 'bus' ?

[0x0ddc0ffee@infosec.exchange]

@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@infosec.exchange]

@0x0ddc0ffee @brouhaha

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"

[vathpela@infosec.exchange]

@0x0ddc0ffee @paul_ipv6 @brouhaha the real miracle is it's from Intel and doesn't have "advanced" in the name.

[just_one_bear@mastodon.social]

@paul_ipv6 @brouhaha Justas how consumer products with "Super" or "Hi-Fi" or "Pro" in the name _aren't_.

[rwwh@mastodon.social]

@0x0ddc0ffee @paul_ipv6 @brouhaha luckily X.509 and Bluetooth almost completely define their technology in their name…. They must be counter-examples?

[bonkers@nerdculture.de]

@brouhaha yeah, my kid just took one to school. Didn't look like anything even close.

[etchedpixels@mastodon.social]

@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 ?

[etchedpixels@mastodon.social]

@0x0ddc0ffee @paul_ipv6 @brouhaha SNTP ?

[bwh@tech.lgbt]

@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@toot.wales]

@bwh @brouhaha I did NOT know that ! You mean USB 3.0 cannot be put into an USB hub ? And/or all USB hubs are 2.0 ?? .. so there are more data lines ? I must admit I never looked into electrical specifications, to me was already "too mind boggling/confusional" the protocol specifications ..

[bwh@tech.lgbt]

@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.)

[brouhaha@mastodon.social]

@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.

[gilesgoat@toot.wales]

@brouhaha @bwh I never knew that, I see why it's not really a bus then

[0x0ddc0ffee@infosec.exchange]

@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.