News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on USB4 Specification v2.0. Parent comment

Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by Alupis on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @08:32PM (#33255951)
Hardware revision numbering schemes can sometimes get wonky... but it's almost as-if the USB folks live in a bubble and are completely unaware of the meme their naming scheme has become.

There has got to be a more simple naming scheme that's easier to follow...

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by smesla on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @08:42PM (#33256019)
> it's almost as-if the USB folks live in a bubble and are completely unaware of the meme their naming scheme has become.

It's almost as if it was designed by a committee.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by colejohnson66 on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @10:00PM (#33256535)
Run by the same companies that marked USB products
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by booi on Tuesday October 18, 2022 @10:21PM (#33256704)
Hi, USB committee member here. I hear your concern and I’m officially launching the USB4 v2.0 naming schema v0.5b task force to analyze the naming schema. Thank you for your concern.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:USB4 Specification v2.0 by stingraycharles on Wednesday October 19, 2022 @01:58AM (#33258292)
Semantic versioning would be just fine here I’d say; e.g. they could have named this USB 4.1 to indicate compatibility.

Alas, I suspect there are many conflicting desires here, and marketing may have something to do with it — the ability to convince customers into buying new hardware by confusing them may have something to do with it.

[ Parent | on HN ]