Hacker News Reader

Comment by joshstrange | Hacker News Reader

Can someone give a legitimate reason for this madness? I thought we were past the hell of "USB 3.1 gen 1"/"USB 3.1 gen 2".

Why is every standards body seemingly incapable of sane naming? The same thing just happened with WiFi semi-recently.

"WiFi 6": Oh thankfully we have sane naming after years of B/G/AC/AX/etc

"WiFi 6E": WTF were they thinking?

View on HN

An organization grows to a size where decisions are made by committee, bikeshedding is rampart, and one idiot in marketing can dismiss and derail the naming suggestions of an entire engineering team.

Must be the same committee who came up with the various PoE standards. 802.11af, 802.11at, 802.3bt... PoE, PoE+, PoE++...

PoE# next?

POE11. Without connector /s

POE++11 will be the most important POE update since POE++98. In fact it will feel as a completely new POE.

Part of the reason is that USB isn’t one linear timeline of newer versions. There are so many optional features that you are really naming a branched tree of USB specs. But even then they seem to have done a particularly bad job.

Isn't this state of things a failure in the "universal" part of USB?

What we have now is a bunch of different types of serial busses that all happen to use one of a handful of different connectors. Even if we ignore everything but the USB-C connector, we have a bunch of different types of serial busses that all use the same connector.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com