Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Linux Makes For Greener Computing

Posted by Hemos on Mon Mar 26, 2007 07:51 AM
from the saving-the-earth-and-licensing-fees dept.
Operating Systems Software Linux
An anonymous reader writes "The UK Government reckons that servers with Linux installed are greener than those running Windows. " The reasoning is that Open Source software tends to have lower hardware requirements and requires less frequent hardware upgrades to "keep up with the Joneses"; the Tory shadow chancellor has estimated that the UK could save ~600 million pounds per year by switching to Linux.
+ -
story
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

Linux Makes For Greener Computing 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • I recall this being submitted [slashdot.org] twice [slashdot.org] at the beginning of the month and I had skimmed the full report [ca.gov][PDF WARNING!].

    If you look over that, you'll see what specific software they did their trials with, the security issues, concerns about the SCO case, the scope of their trials & what recommendations they left.

    However, the only section being discussed in the article is this one:

    Hardware resources and the "Green" agenda
    One of the benefits frequently put forward for the use of Open Source Software is the level of resources needed to support it. This means that for equivalent Open Source and Microsoft Windows systems, the Open Source system will require less memory and a slower processor speed for the same functionality.

    Open Source operating systems such as Linux do not usually have the regular major upgrades that are a feature of Windows, and thus do not have the requirement that goes with these upgrades for a new or upgraded computer to run them. This means that a computer running Linux can have a significantly longer working life than an equivalent computer running Windows. This has the potential to impact significantly on costs, including purchase of software and hardware, and indirectly by reducing business disruption whilst implementing change and upgrading. There are also potential Green Agenda benefits, through reducing the energy and resources consumed in manufacturing replacement equipment, and reducing landfill requirements and costs arising from disposal of redundant equipment.

    Industry observers quote a typical hardware refresh period for Microsoft Windows systems as 3-4 years; a major UK manufacturing organisation quotes its hardware refresh period for Linux systems as 6-8 years.
    Aside from that, the report has your basic run of the mill attitude of OSS being great financially & security wise but, oh, it would take so many resources to train everyone:

    Lessons learned: Adoption of Open Source, particularly for the desktop, requires investment in planning, training of users, development of skills for implementation and support, and detailed consideration of migration and interoperability issues.

    • I recall this being submitted [slashdot.org] twice [slashdot.org] at the beginning of the month and I had skimmed the full report [ca.gov][PDF WARNING!].

      If you look over that, you'll see what specific software they did their trials with, the security issues, concerns about the SCO case, the scope of their trials & what recommendations they left.

      However, the only section being discussed in the article is this one:

      Hardware resources and the "Green" agenda
      One of the benefits frequently put forward for the use of Open Source Software is the level of resources needed to support it. This means that for equivalent Open Source and Microsoft Windows systems, the Open Source system will require less memory and a slower processor speed for the same functionality.

      Open Source operating systems such as Linux do not usually have the regular major upgrades that are a feature of Windows, and thus do not have the requirement that goes with these upgrades for a new or upgraded computer to run them. This means that a computer running Linux can have a significantly longer working life than an equivalent computer running Windows. This has the potential to impact significantly on costs, including purchase of software and hardware, and indirectly by reducing business disruption whilst implementing change and upgrading. There are also potential Green Agenda benefits, through reducing the energy and resources consumed in manufacturing replacement equipment, and reducing landfill requirements and costs arising from disposal of redundant equipment.

      Industry observers quote a typical hardware refresh period for Microsoft Windows systems as 3-4 years; a major UK manufacturing organisation quotes its hardware refresh period for Linux systems as 6-8 years.

      Aside from that, the report has your basic run of the mill attitude of OSS being great financially & security wise but, oh, it would take so many resources to train everyone:

      Lessons learned: Adoption of Open Source, particularly for the desktop, requires investment in planning, training of users, development of skills for implementation and support, and detailed consideration of migration and interoperability issues.

      Not to mention redoing all of the proprietary apps that have been written for Windows, which lots of businesses require. If you factor in the cost to software developers having to re-implement their software and users having to buy it again, I'd say it'd cost much more than 600 million pounds. Not to mention training, as you said.

      It would be positive to get a more diverse environment and more competition, and I hope WINE continues to progress, but I think the way they look at it over-simplifies it.

      • Re:One Piece of a Very Long Report (Score:4, Insightful)

        by curious.corn (167387) on Monday March 26 2007, @09:18AM (#18487539)
        If it ain't broke don't fix it, isolate it. If an obsolete application matches business requirements there would be no reason to overhaul it so some new platform if it were isolatable, decoupled from the OS and application platforms deployed on corp desktops. There's a big problem when maintenance of said software requires the conservation of a whole, disperse environment (under one, guess which, monoculture). That's the strategy, fault and guilt of certain companies that tie in beneficial products to the acceptance of a whole package that will, eventually, become a liabitily and hindrance.

    • Re:One Piece of a Very Long Report (Score:5, Interesting)

      by superbrose (1030148) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:19AM (#18486943) Homepage

      Lessons learned: Adoption of Open Source, particularly for the desktop, requires investment in planning, training of users, development of skills for implementation and support, and detailed consideration of migration and interoperability issues.

      It all depends on the general needs of the end users. Let's just say that most users will not go beyond using email, browsing the Internet, creating documents, instant messaging, listening to music and watching videos. Leaving system administration aside, I don't think that the general Windows user would require any training at all in order to make the switch.

      When replacing my mum's computer years ago I left her no choice and simply installed Debian with KDE for her, thereby cutting the cost of having to buy commercial software. She had no other option but to adapt, and despite being 60+ and generally not being a technophile, she never had any problems. (Well, I once upgraded the system for her and accidentally made GNOME the default display manager, and she said to me that GNOME was much easier to use. That came as a bit of a surprise to me.)

      As far as system administration goes, I don't think it's an easy task in Linux, and to do a proper job, I don't think it's easy in Windows either. In both cases I would say that there is need for training.

      • Re:One Piece of a Very Long Report (Score:5, Insightful)

        by jimicus (737525) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:32AM (#18487085) Homepage
        I once upgraded the system for her and accidentally made GNOME the default display manager, and she said to me that GNOME was much easier to use. That came as a bit of a surprise to me.

        Each to their own. One thing Gnome does have over KDE is it doesn't present you 100 options for every little thing. For a lot of people, "not being inundated with options which I don't really understand or care about" is a big plus.

    • Re:One Piece of a Very Long Report (Score:4, Interesting)

      by jimstapleton (999106) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:22AM (#18486973) Journal
      Honestly, I think it depends on distro though.

      I've used FC3 and 4 vs. my Windows XP desktop at home, but were similar except my home machine (Win XP) had weaker CPU, yet on a given task my home machine was much faster.

      Conversely, for similar tasks, my home machine is on par with another home machine running Ubuntu, with similar quality hardware, and couldn't touch that same machine in terms of performance, when the machine ran FreeBSD (not Linux, yes I know, but it's my OS of choice, and it is OSS), or Gentoo.

      I'm sure the Ubuntu or FC's could be sped up quite a bit with some work, but that costs money, countering the "green"-ness I think.

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by neaorin (982388) on Monday March 26 2007, @07:55AM (#18486733)
    Linux contains more carbs and less fat than Windows. More at 11.

  • 600 million pounds? Oh right, opposition MPs in the UK in will say anything to get in the papers.

    I'm not saying its impossible to be greener than Windows, but 600mil is likely way overstated considering the source.

    • Re:600 million squid? (Score:5, Interesting)

      by arivanov (12034) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:38AM (#18487159) Homepage
      Quite likely actually.

      I have done similar math and the results for a small company with 300-350 systems half/n/half Windows+Linux were as follows:

      Zero baseline - Everything that can run on Via does run on custom built Via, workstations are P4s with Debian sarge with an upgraded kernel and cpu_freq ondemand governor, servers are again Debian based opterons with power management to the max and all 2U+ servers are recycled multiple times till complete death relegating them to less CPU intensive duties in the process (and using the lowest power consumption parts available on each refurbishment). Average desktop lifetime 4+ years under linux, 2+ years under winhoze. Average server lifetime 3+ years for non-1U linux boxes, 2 years for Winhoze or 1U linux boxes.

      First vendor interfacing buzzword compliance stage - migration to RHEL, no Via, HP only shop, no software RAID, hardware RAID only on factory supplied hardware only. That came up to 6000£ extra in electricity per year using UK standard rates (combined power consumption + airconditioning requirement costs). I estimated the average desktop lifetime for linux in this one to decrease to 3 years or less due to RHEL release cycle.

      Second vendor interfacing buzzword compliance stage - migration of everything but testing systems to Winhoze on P4, with mandatory on-access AV checking on all (and the CPU requirements brought by this), removal of Linux servers from all duties. This came up to 12000£ extra in electricity per year (combined power consumption + airconditioning requirement costs). In this one desktop lifetime goes down to 2 years.

      I have never bothered trying to compute a third milestone for a windows only shop (the company shipped a linux based product at the time so that was pointless). I would not be surprised if the total aircon + power extra requirement was all the way into the 18K on top of the existing gear. So 600 million across all parasitic institutions (even assuming that they deploy only buzzword compliant kit) is actually believable. If you add to that the hardware lifetime requirements the numbers may come up even more.

  • Shadow Council? (Score:3, Funny)

    by Ikyaat (764422) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:05AM (#18486825) Homepage
    "the Tory shadow chancellor has estimated that the UK could save ~600 million pounds"

    I didn't know that the UK had a shadow council. Do they collaborate with the Axis Of Evil? or are they an entirely separate council? Where would you go to apply to groups like this? If your hired do you get cool uniforms with cloaks and stuff?

    • Don't listen to those other guys, they're pulling your leg.

      A shadow cabinet is just a box divided int various sized rectangular spaces, into which you put curiosities to be admired (or gawked at, depending on your point of view).
    • The Shadow Cabinet is the fake government posts we give the people who lose a general election in the UK.

      It's like the US, except you call the loser of the election 'Mister President'...

      • Yes, but aren't the Tories the Conservative Party? Perhaps I'm just dumb, uninformed American who doesn't understand the intricacies of British politics (very likely the case), but conservatives here (Republicans) don't typically champion environmental causes or care much about alternative OSes like Linux.

        • Opposition party vs Ruling party (Score:4, Insightful)

          by Per Abrahamsen (1397) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:25AM (#18487015) Homepage
          The opposition parties tend to support the "alternative" solutions, while the ruling parties tend tend to support he "established" players. When the opposition parties win an election, they immediately betray their former friends and start supporting the establishment.

          Not sure why.

        • The Tories are like all politicians: they will say absolutely anything that might help them gain power. It's what they do once they have the power that counts, and believe me, it's never what they promised.

          Basically the Tories are still suffering from the undying hatred that Margaret Thatcher earned them, so now they'll say anything that might make them seem cuddly and nice. They're still just a bunch of power-hungry exploitative bastards, though.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by clickety6 (141178)
          That's because in the UK, even the right wing conservatives are to the left of your supposedly left wing democrats.

          Although strangely enough, our left wing new labour are to the right of our right wing conservatives.

          I hope that clears it up for you.

        • Both Labour and Conservative have become middle-of-the-road capitalist socialist parties who chase after the swing voters, identified using A Classification Of Residential Neighbourhoods (ACORN) [caci.co.uk]. From this, they know that there are some segments of the population who will always vote Labour (the immigration/state benefits industry) and other segments who will always vote Conservative (business owners), so they will never change. Instead, they go after those voters where a small change in taxation can make

  • New angle (Score:3, Insightful)

    by CheeseTroll (696413) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:06AM (#18486831)
    We've cynically joked about how large organizations praise Linux as a bargaining tool to extract lower costs from Microsoft. Now they're using it to get better deals on new hardware, too!
  • that he could obtain around 500 geek votes by using a sentence with the word 'Linux' in it, while not loosing any because few of his other constituents will understand what the word means.

    In other news, Home Secretary claims that 'Linux' will cut crime, while junior race relations minister says 'Linux' improves ethnic diversity......
  • Someone is about to get a friendly visit from Microsoft to set them straight.
    • Yeah - I was wondering how the UK political parties were planning to solve their funding problems. Now we know...

      (Only joking.)
  • By the logic they use it would only save more money if the hardware itself was not the high end stuff that demands lots of juice. If you already own equipment that needs the juice switching to Linux wouldn't do a whole hell of a lot for you. I do love Linux and wish more people used, but I don't think trying to make it look green when it isn't really any different than other OSs in that regard. Just more politico attention grabbing headlines.

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by Looce (1062620)
      What if this "equipment" you speak of is actually a Windows Server System cluster? Containing dozens, if not hundreds, of old hosts. Some of them could be eliminated if the memory/CPU is used more efficiently (or turned off, and used later if a software system needs more juice).

      Also, have you thought for even one second that the government has used computing longer than you have? They have records of births, deaths, census data, driver's license information, criminal records, statistical data (at least in C [statcan.ca]

  • Packaging (Score:4, Insightful)

    by essence (812715) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:18AM (#18486939) Homepage Journal
    Another thing is that Linux (or the BSD's) can be downloaded off the internet, while Windows requires that you buy a fresh new disk packaged in cardboard and plastic wrap. Clearly if everyone could download software and not use the packaging, that would save a lot of resources.
    • So what you're saying is that instead of buying stuff we should all download software and movies from Pirate Bay [thepiratebay.org], because it's environmentally friendly?
      • So what you're saying is that instead of buying stuff we should all download software and movies from Pirate Bay, because it's environmentally friendly?

        Some business models do not have provisions to make it easy to get. The rationale is if its easy to get, there's a perception the cost would be low. Who's going to spend $700 on their credit card to download a bundle of MS software?

        You will NEVER see Microsoft offering downloads of their main software groups over the internet.
  • The Conservative (not Tory, please, that was a long time ago) party needs to partner with Sun Microsystems and move the next government to Solaris 10:

    here [sun.com]

    However, many of us believe that the current lot are living on Stanislaus Lem's Solaris already.

  • Green is the new marketing buzzword. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RexRhino (769423) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:27AM (#18487035)
    You can make some convoluted arguement that just about everything is some way "green", and it will increase the sales (or increase adoption). Being "green" is the new marketing buzzword. It is kind of like "lower fat" products... lower fat than what?

    One could easily argue that by keeping older, less energy effecient machines around, you are wasting energy, and therefore Windows is "Greener".

    Basicly, the term "Green" is totally meaningless.

  • Support deals cost more. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Bender Unit 22 (216955) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:31AM (#18487075) Journal
    I was just thinking it over and my experience is that Linux servers tends to live longer before the application running on the server gets migrated to a newer system. But you have to plan ahead and buy a server that can run the application even if the usage raises, new features gets added and the amount of data raises, but that is a matter of planning.

    Another issue is that you need to calculate what your hardware support contracts will cost you if you plan to have those. After 3 years they tend to get more expensive and even more so after 5 years. Then you might want to migrate it to another server instead.
    It would also be interesting to take virtualization into the equation, more servers on the same iron, easier migration, but if you run VMware, you need to upgrade all the servers you plan to do vmotion between, at one time because it does not like different hardware or CPU steppings.
    • If "Windows has better power management" it is because of manufacturers not releasing details to the Linux kernel developers. Something which could be rectified by passing a suitable law e.g. "Hardware specifications are not proprietary secrets but form part of the operating instructions. Approval of a product for sale is contingent upon the hardware manufacturer releasing specifications in sufficient detail to enable the writing of an Open Source driver".
  • It seems to me that if desktops PCs were replaced with thin clients, in the workplace, that would have a dramatic effect on energy saving.

  • Duh (Score:3, Interesting)

    by r_jensen11 (598210) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:40AM (#18487187)
    Of course. When you pretty much need a P4 or a Core Duo for newer versions of Windows, while Linux will run just fine on P3's. Sure, you can install it on things going back to 386's and possibly earlier, but then there's no practicality.

  • Interesting speculation (Score:4, Interesting)

    by HangingChad (677530) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:41AM (#18487197) Homepage

    The article leads to some interesting speculation. I don't think it would be an X-File to think MSFT kept their relationship cozy with OEM's by boosting the hardware requirements for Vista in exchange for them not offering Linux or bare machines. Not to mention finding ways to boost the OEM's margin on Vista.

    It's obvious to state that the only way Dell and Microsoft can boost their earnings is by selling more product. But for the vast majority of users, the product they have now is more than adequate. Overall, my impression is this is more of a problem for Dell than Microsoft, who can drag their feet on security updates and discontinue support for older versions of their product to motivate updates. But old hardware goes on, theoretically, indefinitely.

    Anyone staying with Windows has already figured out that the only way MSFT can continue making quarterly numbers is to squeeze their remaining customer base for more revenue. The more they squeeze, the more customers look for alternatives to Microsoft products. Rinse, lather, repeat.

    My overall impression is that Dell and MSFT cling together for mutual support in the face of a saturated market on both sides of the IT equation. And that, for the most part, it's getting harder to play that game going forward.

  • I took a look at my Dell Windows computer (charcoal), and my Dell Linux laptop (silver), then compared them to my Monarch Linux desktop. It isn't greener, in fact it is beige.

    I guess the report is wrong.
    • But then consider the carbon figures for your Windows computer(Charcoal) vs. Linux laptop(Silver) ;)

  • I Call BS (Score:4, Funny)

    by should_be_linear (779431) on Monday March 26 2007, @08:56AM (#18487349)
    Linux might be greener but Windows has definately bluer screens.
  • Woo-hoo! By using Free Software, I no longer have to feel guilty about my jet-set theorist lifestyle!
  • Regardless of the greenness of Linux, you still need Windows [zdnet.com] to run it. Sounds ungreen to me.
  • I share the opinion that linux performs remarkably better on older hardware. But older hardware doesn't mean it's power consumption is lower. (I mean typical desktop computers @ companies, not high-end PC-s.) Older processors had greater power needs for example. Plus I'm not sure older hardware has been made of more environmental friendly materials than the most recent devices. [Sorry for my english.]

  • Rubbish... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by pointbeing (701902) on Monday March 26 2007, @12:24PM (#18489919)
    From TFA...

    In particular, it said that: "for equivalent open source and Microsoft Windows systems, the open source system will require less memory and a slower processor speed for the same functionality." It points out that Windows needs a hardware refresh every three to four years, while a Linux box might need a new platform as infrequently as every six to eight years - half as often.

    As I said in the subject line, rubbish.

    I have three identical machines in my home office - all three are Dell Precision Workstation 360 machines with 2.8GHz processors, 1GB o'memory and identical 36GB 10k rpm U320 SCSI hard drives. Two of them run Windows XP with all patches and one runs CentOS 4.4 - again, with all patches. Window manager is Gnome - which for me is a good balance between the bloatware that is KDE and my favorite but frequently irritating window manager, XFCE4.

    The Linux box is *not* faster than the Windows boxes. Granted, the Windows machines mainly just surf the web or play music or store pictures and the Linux box acts as a mail/web server for all of three users, but the machine boots slower, applications load slower and the whole machine is less responsive.

    Gnome will bring up a desktop about five seconds slower than XFCE will, which is pretty darned speedy - but counting the time it takes me to boot both machines, log on (and type startx on the Linux box) I have a working desktop quicker in Windows than I do in Linux.

    Now I will say that while I do have a working desktop on the Windows box there are still services starting in the background, but on identical hardware all applications are more responsive on the Redmond machines than on the CentOS box.

    I guess the Linux box would last 8 years - if I never patched it.

    • Personally, I do my part for the environment by using brand X over Y. Most of the time during the day, I just leave my computer off entirely. Instead, I run SETI@home using chisenbop on a beowulf cluster of hands with a cat5 stuck between my cheeks.
    • As long as there are no recyclables in your rubbish bin and no rubbish in your recycling bin, you have nothing to worry about.

      Disposing of rubbish in landfill costs 5 pence per kilo. Mixed recyclables bring in 4 pence per kilo. This means anyone putting recyclables in their rubbish bin is effectively stealing 9 pence per kilo from your local council; and therefore from the police, local schools and old people's homes.
    • I am compelled to wonder whether Al Gore and any Democrats running Windows will feel compelled to buy "carbon credits" to offset their waste of energy by running Windows.
    • Well, that would be a good idea. The NHS is a big enough user to be able to have its own dedicated IT department. It would for sure be cheaper to employ local programmers (who buy gooods in local shops, pay local taxes, eat in local restaurants, donate to local good causes and take their family to visit local tourist attractions) to work on software and know that it will always be maintainable, than to keep shipping taxpayers' money out to Redmond for precious little benefit. I don't begrudge the NHS a

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by ajs318 (655362)
      See, that's the thing that nobody wants to talk about.

      We know the world can't sustain a population of seven billion people all living the all-electric 21st century Western lifestyle. The question is, do we aim to cut the population to about 2.5 - 3G and keep our gadgets -- or let it grow past 10G and become relegated to the level of subsistence farmers, scratching out a meagre living in the dirt?

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.