cross-posted from: https://lemmy.cringecollective.io/post/75583

why isn’t it ok? why???

Meme “the number of people who think this is an abomination” over a photo of a USB-A to USB-A cable, “but think this is perfectly acceptable” over a photo of a USB-C to USB-C cable, “makes me sick.”

  • Ekky@sopuli.xyz
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Huh, I’m not sure they are comparable.

    Didn’t USB A and USB B use a master-slave relationship in which the male would (generally) always be the slave, whereas USB C uses agreement and discussion to decide the master and slave roles regardless of connector gender.

    Please do correct me if I’m wrong. Also, do we say “agent” now instead of “slave”, or what is the new term?

  • hperrin@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    3 months ago

    USB-A male to USB-A male is not in any USB standard (not entirely true, but compliant cables are very rare and don’t connect voltage), and if you plug it into a device it’s not meant for, the behavior is entirely unspecified. It will probably do nothing. But it might fry your USB controller that is not expecting to receive voltage.

    USB-C to USB-C is in the spec, and if you plug in two host devices, they won’t hurt each other. You can actually charge a host device over USB-C, unlike USB-A.

    That’s why it isn’t ok. It’s not the same thing, it’s not in the standard, and it can even be dangerous (to the device).

    • sparkle@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      Yea but it’s inefficient. USB-A has a significantly lower transfer rate than USB-C so it’ll bottleneck

  • MinekPo1 [She/Her]@lemmygrad.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    3 months ago

    actually they would be correct :

    USB began as a protocol where one side (USB-A) takes the leading role and the other (USB-B) the following role . this was mandated by hardware with differently shaped plugs and ports . this made sense for the time as USB was ment to connect computers to peripherals .

    however some devices don’t fit this binary that well : one might want to connect their phone to their computer to pull data off it , but they also might want to connect a keyboard to it , with the small form factor not allowing for both a USB-A and USB-B port. the solution was USB On-The-Go : USB Mini-A/B/AB and USB Micro-A/B/AB connectors have an additional pin which allows both modes of operations

    with USB-C , aside from adding more pins and making the connector rotationally symmetric , a very similar yet differently named feature was included , since USB-C - USB-C connections were planed for

    so yeah USB-A to USB-A connections are explicitly not allowed , for a similar reason as you only see CEE 7 (fine , or the objectively worse NEMA) plugs on both ends of a cable only in joke made cables . USB-C has additional hardware to support both sides using USB-C which USB-A , neither in the original or 3.0 revision , has .

    • tetris11@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      3 months ago

      With USB-C isn’t there still a slave-master dynamic that is now negotiated via software rather than hardware?

      • sparkle@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        a slave-master dynamic

        please don’t use that term, every time i see it i immediately verge on orgasming. you’ve already made me ruin 2 undergarments today. i have a serious bdsm kink and this is not funny.