Linux 6.5 has many great features from the AMD P-State EPP driver default rather than ACPI CPUFreq for Zen 2 and newer supported AMD Ryzen systems, initial USB4 v2 enablement, initial MIDI 2.0 kernel driver work, more Intel hybrid CPU tuning, and a whole lot more.
Why is USB insistent on having terrible naming schemes?
They want manufacturers to stop writing the USB specification on the packaging and instead focus on the speed.
Of course, this backfired since manufacturers are glad to have another opportunity to confuse potential buyers into purchasing a sub-par product.
Source (PDF)
I can’t really blame the manufacturers because the USB-IF’s suggested schemes would just confuse people even more. If people see 10Gbps on the box they’re gonna assume it can do 10Gbps, but tons of stuff ends up capped well below the USB link speed (most everything based on SATA<->USB converters internally is 6Gbps max).
It’s choosing between a bad naming scheme or something a lot of consumers would interpret as a straight up lie.
But that isn’t USBs fault sata is capped at 6. That’s like saying well I plugged in a usb 1 hard drive adapter and I’m not getting 10 Gbps.
Yes it was never intended that any consumer hears about something like “USB 3.2 Gen 2” that was strictly internal naming for people developing USB devices.
In fact the naming guidelines we’re simplified even further than in the older version you linked: https://cdn.arstechnica.net/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/USB-IF-language-usage-guideliens.pdf
But yea borderline fraudulent manufacturers and uninformed tech journalists are to blame for all this confusion
Bought a “usb 3.2” usb-a/c combo thumb drive.
Not only 5gbps, but usb-storage so not even uas queued command speed.
Thats going back quick.
The v2 part here really just refers to the fact that it’s version 2 of the specification. Consumerrs only need to know the term USB4 and the speed that their device operates at. It’s sort of like complaining that the ietf has terrible naming schemes because HTTP is defined in half a dozen RFCs with 4 digit numbers. This versioning is just meant for people developing USB things.
Actually this article here is one of the few times where even mentioning the version 2 part is reasonable since the details of these specifications actually matter to kernel developerrs. For everybody else it’s just USB4 80 gbps.
That is expecting a lot of the average consumer and is rather unreasonable to do so.
Well you have to differentiate somehow and USB 5, 10, 20, 40 or 80 gbps sound like reasonable terms for normal people.
usb 3.1 gen 1 vs gen 2 vs 3.0 vs 4 vs 4 v2
yes these are the terms that are not supposed to be used in product naming or by consumers and are just intended for use by people developing USB devices.