Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Operating Systems Software Linux

Linux Makes For Greener Computing 186

Posted by Hemos from the saving-the-earth-and-licensing-fees dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Linux Makes For Greener Computing More

Linux Makes For Greener Computing

Comments Filter:

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

    by eldavojohn ( 898314 ) * <eldavojohnNO@SPAMgmail.com> on Monday March 26, 2007 @07:54AM (#18486715) Journal
    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)
        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.
        • Anything that doesn't present you with 100 options for anything is a good thing. Something which doesn't allow you those 100 options is a bad thing. I don't use KDE, but if it really presents you with 100 options for every little thing, that would just drive me nuts. I want to customize the look-and-feel of my system (a lot), but having once done that, I want it to stay that way and not bug me. As long as it is fairly clear where to go to find those 100 options, they never need to be presented. An some
          • I do use KDE, and I've never been "presented with" 100 options (or even five options) for anything. I really can't fathom what GP is referring to. But your hypothetical example for firefox reminds me of my initial with SuSE after switching from Red Hat. The automatic update software would grab the latest SuSE-packaged versions of Firefox and Thunderbird, which for some reason Novell felt compelled to update several times a week. And every time it did this, it would overwrite the skin of my choice with Novel

        • One thing Gnome does have over KDE is it doesn't present you 100 options for every little thing.
          Indeed the only option Gnome users have is to switch to KDE :p

          Each to their own. Seriously. I use Gnome. I like it. Other desktop environments are avaliable.

    • 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 words: switching to Linux has huge up front costs, but it pretty much pays for itself from then on, in a lot of ways.

      Not all that earth-shattering. Or even non-obvious. Switching to a fundamentally better system is usually a good idea. Convincing people (users, government, etc.) to invest a little bit of time to learn about the new system it the impossible part.
    • This story is on slashdot every month for the past 4 years :)

      linux is greener... we get it. enough, its the holy operating system without applications.... NOTHING HAS FUCKING CHANGED. Get the apps, then i'll give a shit if its greener ;)

  • 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.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tolan-b ( 230077 )
      The £600 million quote from the shadow (opposition. ie. not in government) chancellor is unrelated to the green-ness claim, he's just saying OSS is cheaper in general.

  • 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?

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by hey! ( 33014 )
      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'...

  • 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!

  • The Tory shadow chancellor has estimated... (Score:2, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    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......

  • Put the kettle over and boil some water for tea (Score:3, Funny)

    by Bender Unit 22 ( 216955 ) on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:11AM (#18486873) Journal
    Someone is about to get a friendly visit from Microsoft to set them straight.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by makomk ( 752139 )
      Yeah - I was wondering how the UK political parties were planning to solve their funding problems. Now we know...

      (Only joking.)

  • Not Quite Right (Score:2, Insightful)

    by wolff000 ( 447340 )
    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]
    • You're missing about how bad computer parts are for the environment. You have to pay to recycle them so most people through them out, and a landfill full of computers is very bad, just like a fridge that still has its freon is. Computers aren't exactly biodegradable. Reusing one is better than trying to melt the chassis and reuse the metal because doing the same to the mobo is a bit more difficult.
      • ... a landfill full of computers is very bad ...

        Indeed. Even nuclear waste degrades with time. Heavy metals last forever.

        (Or at least as long as the rest of the planet, or the continent the landfill is on. So don't give me the so-far unproven "proton decay" argument or talk about the landfill being recycled with the rest of the crust by geological plate subduction.)

        = = = =

        IMHO, though, a greater cost is the energy and waste from building the replacement computer. Do that half as often and you save a bun
        • I'll keep a computer til the mobo is dead, then use the parts. I've got one at home that's 9 years old, and if the Windows install gets to be just TOO slow, well, Damn Small Linux.

    • 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.


      Or, equivalently, switching to linux would allow you to delay upgrades to newer hardware, or, if you did upgrade, allow you to concentrate on energy-efficiency more.

      Hence the savings.
    • Sure, they make a statement that linux is greener than Windows, and it's open to all sorts of interpretation and comment.
      It's true that one can have a linux install that does not have the hardware requirements of Windows Vista, and still get the job done.
      Powerful hardware usually translates into more power consumption, so linux, able to do the job on less complicated/powerful hardware, is greener.
      I can surf the web with Firefox 2.0.0.3 with my Knoppix remaster [geocities.com], using only 256 MB of system RAM.
      I don't need a

  • 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?

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by dattaway ( 3088 )
        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.

        • I don't know why not - IBM offers most of their products for download over the internet... from a secure password-protected site. And we're not just talking about $700 here, we're talking about everything, from $500 to $50,000. Log in with your password, and whatever you've purchased is there.

          That said, I somehow doubt they use credit cards ;-)

    • 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.

      The Vista DVD is available as a legal download.

      The true Geek of course never burns back-up copies of his OS and applications to disk.

      Never spends a dime on securing his off-line storage.

      Never asks how many resources are consumed in creating and mainta

  • 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.
    • You can't simply look at the cost of running a system and determine the overall impact. The energy costs of manufacturing and shipping are pretty significant. I for one advocate saving old laptops as much as you can. If you have someone using them instead of a desktop, you're saving energy. You keep them happy with their current hardware, you reduce overconsumption. We need to get away from thinking of gadgets as disposable anyhow.
      • I agree with you somewhat. I use a laptop as a desktop machine, specificly to save energy and to save space (and saving space saves energy on heating/cooling if it means you can use a smaller work area).

        However, I am skeptical about the energy costs of manufacturing and shipping an item. If you look at something like a computer, I just don't see the energy from manufacturing or shipping the thing to compare with the energy consumption. If you can point out a source where one can find out the energy used in
        • That's a fair statement, and here you go:

          article at Sciencdaily.com: [sciencedaily.com]

          "Meanwhile, microelectronics has different issues. Computers are used for approximately two to three years, compared with around 10 years for a car, and the recycling rate for all electronics is quite low. In addition, the manufacture of integrated circuits--the devices at the heart of all electronics products--requires the use of ultrapure materials and energy-intensive manufacturing processes... Furthermore, new technologies such as those
        • Broken link! Sorry, it's here [it-environment.org].

          So, install xubuntu on as many old laptops as you can! :)

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

      You have to consider the energy cost of making new hardware. It is significant, much as in the story of the Hummer vs. the Prius. While that study's results are inherently flawed due to foolish assumptions, it does highlight the fact that there are substantial energy costs related to manufacturing.

      With the extremely short lifetime of computer technology I would no

      • I agree with you, that a new server might not provide a net energy savings. However, such a thing would have to be evalutated on a case by case situation. When you saying something like "Linux is more 'Green' than Windows" or the opposite, that is posturing and branding. Much like Pepsi is the "choice of a new generation", Linux is the "choice of a green generation"? Both statements are meaningless.

        A more accurate statement would be "The use of Linux, in appropriate situations, can save a significant amount

        • The goal of using the term is to STOP you from thinking and evalutation a situation, and create a knee jerk reaction that you must do something because it is the "green" choice.

          Sure, that's true. Like anything else the term is often misused by those with an economic agenda.

          But at the same time, it's also true pretty much across the board. If you want Windows support, you have to be current. If you want to run current Windows at a reasonable clip, you need a lot more machine than you will to run Linux. The

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by init100 ( 915886 )

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

      Nothing stops you from running Linux on these newer systems too.

      • Nothing stops you from running Linux on these newer systems too.

        True. And it might even be the case that using Linux on older machines saves energy. My particular beef is with the word "green", which is a marketing buzzword. It is kind of like "smart" was the marketing buzzword in the early 2000s, "green" is the new marketing buzzword of today. Since "green" or "smart" or whatever are totally subjective terms, you can throw them around to the point where they don't mean anything.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by init100 ( 915886 )

          And it might even be the case that using Linux on older machines saves energy.

          I don't really think it saves any significant amounts of energy when it is running. The savings are in the longer upgrade cycle, since it won't need a new computer every time it gets a new operating system version. Granted, non-enterprise distros usually have much shorter upgrade cycles than Windows, but usually, no hardware upgrade is necessary for those.

  • 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".
    • That is by no means universal. On a lot of mainstream hardware, a modern Linux will support power management as well as or better than Win2k or even XP. Add to that the fact that Linux software is often more efficient (mostly server apps). And then consider that you don't need to upgrade the hardware in order to upgrade to a newer Linux. Then (and this is the biggie) realize that your Linux workstations will never be compromised by spammers and turned into a network-crippling botnet. All of those add up to
  • 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.

  • But my computer is beige! (Score:4, Funny)

    by filesiteguy ( 695431 ) <perfectreign@gmail.com> on Monday March 26, 2007 @08:44AM (#18487223)
    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.

  • 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.]
  • Would be to persuade CEO's that just because there's a new version of Office and Windows, you don't HAVE to upgrade to it. Lots of companies are doing quite nicely on NT4/Office 97. For 90% of users, there's been nothing new since then that's of any real use. Sure, some will find th occassional new funky tool or have a power-user level of need but the vast majority would be quite happy plinking away on their PIII/600 with 256Mb of RAM.
  • The only computers I ever saw that were remotely green were the OLPC, and that runs Linux. So yes, linux is greener.

  • 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.

  • Linux can be used as a means to protect our environment, by using its features to save power or paper, since it doesn't require big hardware it may be used with old computers to make their life cycle longer, games may be used in environmental education and software is available to simulate ecological processes. I described this means in the Linux-Ecology-HOWTO [computerecology.org].
  • On one hand Google now runs about 60 data centers with 2 million CPUs and petabytes of disk- the largest coherent computer system in the world and the most power consuming. On the other hand Google has designed their computers and software to minimize power for both economic and ecological reasons, and to site their centers near renweable energy like hydropower when they can. I'd venture to guess they have "greenest" per petabyte of any super computer. I am not sure how much Linux is inside Google's cust

Slashdot Top Deals

Business is a good game -- lots of competition and minimum of rules. You keep score with money. -- Nolan Bushnell, founder of Atari

Close