β² 434 βΌ just robot stuff (thelemmy.club) submitted 16 hours ago by sharkfucker420@sh.itjust.works to c/comicstrips@lemmy.world 26 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 12 hours ago (1 child) They are against the spec, but they exist permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] LongLive@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 child) wait why permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] LongLive@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago (1 child) wait why permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] TootSweet@lemmy.world 3 points 7 hours ago (1 child) USB A extension cables exist and work very well, so I'm not saying this is justified, but... My guess for the rationale behind the explicit ban on female USB A cables in the spec is that signals degrade over distance and they didn't want to try to go to the extra work to make USB host and guest devices hardy enough against noise in the signal to work reliably even in the presence of extension cables. Apparently USB host/guest devices are hardy enough against noise to handle extension cables just fine. But I'm thinking that wasn't planned to be the case by the authors of the spec. Perhaps most USB host/guest devices exceed the spec in at least that particular regard. Clearly not all female USB A ports are banned by the spec. Female ports on USB host devices, of course, would have to be allowed or USB would be useless. Given that, I'm guessing an active (powered) extension could be strictly compliant with the spec. (Think of it as a one-port USB hub.) permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
[β] Alvaro@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 point 2 hours ago As far as I know, it was mostly about not creating confusion about who is the host and who is the peripheral device. By limiting female connections only to hosts and male connections only to peripherals, there can never be a situation where you get host/host or peripheral/peripheral. This still begs the question: why not allow extension cables? And it seems that they don't explain anything past the roles issue. permalink fedilink source parent
