3 ms·
You started out saying that a good cable always works, effectively staking a position that you just need to get rid of bad cables. Now you're saying that we ne
by barrkel 7y ago
You started out saying that a good cable always works, effectively staking a position that you just need to get rid of bad cables.
Now you're saying that we need to throw out working devices so that we can ensure we only need good cables.
- arghwhat 7y agoYou were talking about how many combinations there were of cables, which is always solvable by choosing the good cables. There is no cable type for defective devices, so that does not change anything. What the rPI did would be akin to a micro-USB device using data pins for power. Such device would be defective, and not "another type" of micro-USB.
- KirinDave 7y agoThe mistake they made is really easy to make accidentally. The USB-C spec is complicated and cables aren't marked. Many folks still don't know there are multiple types of cables.
- arghwhat 7y agoTo be honest, the complicated parts are not where the mistakes are made. Routing 40Gb/s is hard. Placing one or two resistors is not. But agreed that marking could be better—maybe marking lower cables as "charge" cable somehow. At least Thunderbolt cables are distinctly marked, and will become merged in USB4.
- makomk 7y agoAny spec will always have some way of building devices that violate the spec but happen to work some of the time. There's no way around that, which means that blaming the spec and complaining that you "need to throw out working devices" isn't going to help you.