News for hackers. Stuff that matters.
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by bsder on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @02:36PM (#13223180)
If only there were a wired protocol that is high-speed, has a standard connector, can deliver power, and has both bandwidth and latency controls ... wouldn't that be wonderful? Then we wouldn't have to reinvent all of these wires.

(Yes, sarcasm. That protocol is called Ethernet. And basically every high-speed interface we currently have is a bad reimplementation of it for political reasons.)

Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by givinguflac on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @05:07PM (#13224600)
Good luck with 40Gb/s speeds or pushing 100W on ethernet. (Sure you could use HDBaseT for 100W but we're talking about getting rid of adapters right?) It's definitely not just for political reasons, that's disingenuous at best.
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by bsder on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @03:20AM (#13227604)
There is no good reason why USB 3.0 wasn't USB 2.0 spliced with Ethernet other than politics. It wasn't cheaper. It wasn't faster. The drivers weren't better. The connector wasn't smaller.

However, HDMI (which is primarily four pairs of high speed serial--just like Ethernet) and later Displayport became the "solution" because of all the people pushing HDCP.

Thunderbolt was the "solution" to the fact that USB 3.0 wasn't coming down the pipe fast enough. And that drivers were just too complicated. Why solve the simple problem of loading a driver at boot time when you can just give the peripheral complete control over a system bus? What could possibly go wrong?

USB 3.0 is an "evolution" over 2.0 in the way that a jackalope is an evolution--splicing two completely unrelated things together (USB 2.0 spliced with 4 high speed pairs--just like Ethernet). But you can't charge a licensing fee for Ethernet ...

Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by joelwilliamson on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @09:37PM (#13226392)
100Gb ethernet has been around since 2010.
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by cm2187 on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @06:49PM (#13225482)
Is there any reason we couldn't switch to a dual optic fibre (for signal) and copper (for power) ethernet?
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by mmagin on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @04:50PM (#13224423)
Ethernet is not as cheap as USB 2 for low-cost/low-performance devices. And it's not as fast (plus higher overhead) than Thunderbolt for high perfomance applications. Thunderbolt is (very loosely speaking) PCIe extended outside of the computer.

(And yes, I'm assuming bare ethernet frames, not IP or such)

Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by bsder on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @03:26AM (#13227624)
We're not talking Ethernet vs USB 2.0. USB 2.0 wins in terms of cheapness.

However, Ethernet IS cheaper than USB 3.0. And Ethernet is significantly less complex. Look at carnage from all the audio interface people trying to come to grips with Thunderbolt and USB 3.0. Whereas, people implement gigabit Ethernet interfaces all the time.

And this dovetails with USB 2.0. In terms of complexity, I have found that Ethernet wins. I have started removing USB 2.0 from anything I can and replacing it with Ethernet when possible. USB 2.0 is such a pain to handle in terms of drivers while Ethernet "just works".

Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by wildmusings on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @11:40PM (#13226831)
100Gb ethernet seems to be faster than Thunderbolt (max 40Gb). PCI Express v4 x16 does win at ~250Gb, but 400Gb ethernet is in the works.
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by stuckagain on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @07:16PM (#13225637)
Ethernet does not have any of the guarantees that 1394 offers.
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by nitrogen on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @10:46PM (#13226651)
At the physical layer, gigabit PHYs can be used to send any logical protocol you want. You could implement something akin to 1394 over 1000base-T.
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by bsder on Wednesday December 21, 2016 @02:49AM (#13227507)
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by jjoonathan on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @04:42PM (#13224330)
How I long for the day when I can configure the subnet mask of my mouse, the mDNS settings of my graphics card, and the routing table of my PCH!

(Yes, sarcasm. Two can play.)

Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by foxhill on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @05:05PM (#13224574)
ethernet has as much to do with TCP/IP and DNS as does radio waves with FM radio.

ethernet is a wire protocol upon which a TCP/IP stack runs on top of. if USB looked a lot more like ethernet, it would be far easier to write drivers for devices.

Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by jjoonathan on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @07:44PM (#13225809)
USB and PCIe are not layer 2 protocols, they're vertical over layers 1-6 so I filled in the blanks of the proposal, such as it was. If you want to pick nits, do it with bsder, comparing the two is his idea.

> it would be far easier to write drivers for devices

I can only assume this comes from a place of "I know a bit about ethernet and would like to transfer that knowledge to the embedded space." It certainly doesn't come from a place of "I write drivers for the USB and PCIe stacks and think ethernet would make my job easier."

There's also the matter of what HW/FW likes, which probably has greater bearing on the situation than what SW likes, and I can assure you that they'd be even less enthusiastic about the replacement than I am. Proof: they've got a choice! If they wanted to use ethernet, they could just do it. They don't. For good reason.

Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by rbanffy on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @05:03PM (#13224559)
You know using IP is not a requirement for using Ethernet.
Re:How Apple Alienated Mac Loyalists by jjoonathan on Tuesday December 20, 2016 @07:45PM (#13225813)
Yes, I do.