News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on USB4 Specification. Parent comment

Re:USB4 Specification by Havoc on Tuesday September 03, 2019 @05:48PM (#20871542)
Next revision of the pi will fix it.

It was an example of "layman has no idea which side is up"...but yes the rasp is the culprit here...for not following a rather complicated standard.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by throwaway156503 on Tuesday September 03, 2019 @06:20PM (#20871831)
If I remember correctly though, the fault was in them not following the reference layout for a particular circuit diagram.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by ProZsolt on Wednesday September 04, 2019 @06:49AM (#20875848)
You are correct! https://medium.com/@leung.benson/how-to-design-a-proper-usb-...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by shawnz on Tuesday September 03, 2019 @05:57PM (#20871635)
Sorry, what I meant was how should they fix the pains of using USB in practice? Not specifically the raspberry pi issue.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by Havoc on Tuesday September 03, 2019 @06:08PM (#20871729)
Less accomodating everyone & everything.

It needs more simplicity.

Like the rasp issue - the cables marked active work while the ones not don't. Or vice versa? I don't recall. Never seen any such markings - but apparently there is a distinction there that some how interacts with raspberry not having enough capacitors.

^^ See that paragraph of confusion? That's what standardization chaos looks like. Neither I nor apparently raspberry foundation know whats going on.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification by shawnz on Tuesday September 03, 2019 @06:16PM (#20871797)
So then what should they have accommodated and what should they have left out? Should they have dropped backwards compatibility? Should they have made different connectors for every use case? Those are the exact problems which caused USB to become popular in the first place!
[ Parent | on HN ]