Slashdot Mirror
Linux Makes For Greener Computing
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.
Linux is indeed BETTER then Windows at certain THINGS, one of which COULD well be power EFFICIENCY. However, I still KEEP finding Tory MP's PLAYING around my BINS, and it makes me ANGRY.
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: 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:
My work here is dung.
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.
Height: 38U, Weight: 0 Newtons, Eyes: #0000FF, OS: Gray Matter 1.0 (Alpha)
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?
"Luck is a tag given by the mediocre to account for the accomplishments of genius." -Heinlein
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!
A post a day keeps productivity at bay.
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......
What does it say about the technical merits of a platform when things like global warming are presented as a reason to switch to that platform..
I tend to think that if someone presents prevent global warming as a reason to do something that is not directly realted that topic, they have a weak argument.
For example, use bran X it is utter crap but at least it is "Greener" than brand Y which actually works. Right, because you are buying the product to fight global warming, not to do the intended task of said product.
The war with islam is a war on the beast
The war on terror is a war for peace
Someone is about to get a friendly visit from Microsoft to set them straight.
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.
WTF?
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.
FTA, emphasis mine
So, can it be said they are predicting the demise of OS X? For that matter Linux being "free" don't stop it from being a "commercial OS".
here
However, many of us believe that the current lot are living on Stanislaus Lem's Solaris already.
Pining for the fjords
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.
I knew I shouldnt have switched the default XPs wallpaper.
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.
How much more green could this be? The answer is none: none more green.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
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.
The fact that they have examined OSS and consider its use to have potential benefits on the hardware requirements side of things is rather interesting, Linux, just one of the FOSS options, can be tailored to suit specific needs and older versions can be maintained with backports if need be, while there are certain ways in which proprietary software can be customised, the license of an OS like windows will never be as helpful as a FOSS license in this respect.
That is what I understood.
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.
And don't forget that if you have a server environment, you don't need any GUI in place.
Maybe just SSH access.
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.
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.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
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.
The Kai's Semi-Updated Website Thingy
why not switch the NHS over to Linux save millions
environment.
Linux might be greener but Windows has definately bluer screens.
839*929
Woo-hoo! By using Free Software, I no longer have to feel guilty about my jet-set theorist lifestyle!
Personally I'm getting very tired of the all the noise about hardware requirements. Why do we even bother to make faster and better components if we already get what we need out of existing hardware?
I especially liked the Greenpeace opinion that we should all blame Microsoft for making people in "developing countries" want to use the same features availible to the rest of the world with all this new and fancy stuff in Vista. Perhaps we should seek a UN resolution prohibiting the use of advanced technology anywhere outside the US and Europe?
Naturally I'm all for a better environment, but it's not realistic to expect people to lower their standard of living in order to achieve it. Instead, we need to work out ways to make it possible to improve the quality of life on the entire planet without causing harm to our ecosphere. I'm sure our new computer hardware will play a big role in doing that, so when historians look back at this period of time they will likely say that improving our computer hardware was a very good thing for the environment.
You would save a lot more because you wouldn't be able to play all those games! Buy a Wii as well, and then you can game again for only 20 watts! win/win
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?
Three Squirrels
The UK could save ~600 million pounds per year by switching... their PCs off every night! The US could probably save shiploads more $$$$ by doing the same thing, and contributing a bit less to greenhouse warming. I'm not talking servers here, I'm talking work and home desktops.
And yes, switching to Linux in the home and office (where possible, of course) will also save cash.
How many times do I have to tell you damned kids to shut off the light when you leave the room? -my dad
Regardless of the greenness of Linux, you still need Windows 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.]
GENERATION 668: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation
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".
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
...it says it's becoming difficult to compete on functionality. 95% of computers users require the same half-dozen functions, most of those only require a competent browser, and every OS, including BeOS, would serve them just fine. My 5yo used BeOS for the first year of his computing life (last year).
My turnips listen for the soft cry of your love
Linux has been much, MUCH greener than windoze for years! Take our local library, for example, which replaced 8 windows boxes with just 2 linux boxes running 8 terminals. Drastic reduction in electricity used, components, boxes, etc. Check out:
http://userful.com/
And sample customers, case studies, in public libraries, etc.:
http://userful.com/customers/case-studies
In banks:
http://userful.com/products/banking/case-studies
Dell has an "Open Source Desktops" page under their desktops menu.
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 significantly less energy used than what most large organizations are currently using.
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.
I want a list of atrocities done in your name - Recoil
David Cameron (leader of the Conservative Party and the opposition party) is no where near as close a pal of Bill G as is B Liar (Tony Blair)
This leads me to think that when he wind the next election, a real examinaton of what our esteemed government has been wasting out money on for the past 10 years will take place.
The deals with Microsoft is only one of the places where oodles on dosh have gone to waste.
Don't even get me started on PFI.
One Gov office I know is at this moment throwing out 1yr old PC's so the can all get shiny new Vista boxes to run their spreadsheets on.
This is a pure waste of taxpayers money.
They only upgraded from NT to XP 12 months ago. I can't think how much they have added to Microsoft's coffers.
The only computers I ever saw that were remotely green were the OLPC, and that runs Linux. So yes, linux is greener.
O.K let's take into account that it takes a smaller machine and not as many upgrades.
Let's assume someone keeps his machine 5 or 6 years with linux installed on it and suddenly something give, like the cpu or the memory, now how much would it cost for that user to get the same cpu to run on his machine? We assume here it's a server and not some home usage, How much do you think it's going to cost him to find replcment parts?
O.k he could always scrap the machine and buy another one, maybe not new but overall it would cost the company more downtime than anything else and ultimately you would be throwing the computer away anyway.
We may change our computers every 3 years but those machine will go to someone else and maybe work for another 3 years so it's going to be the same in the end when it comes to the environment.
the only thing is that it's going to be cheaper not greener to run linux
Life needs more saving throws.
What would save businesses a lot on power would be to not install any OpenGL or other fancy screensaves but only setup the blank screen DPMS style ones that actually suspend the screen when the machine is idle. I see screens all the time at work that run screensavers keeping the display from going to sleep. The savings would be about 100 watts per display for CRTs and maybe 50 watts for LCDs. Also, I bet lots of video cards in dpms probably draw less power and the cpu could go deeper into powernow or whatever power reduction.
Each to their own. Seriously. I use Gnome. I like it. Other desktop environments are avaliable.
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.
we see things not as as they are, but as we are.
-- anais nin
>> the UK could save ~600 million pounds per year by switching to Linux And they could save an additional $600 mil pounds by not using computers all together. Sorry to beat the TCO drum, but seriously, how much is it going to cost to rewrite all their client applications (emulation will only require MORE computing power than the actual Windows box). Last I checked moving from old hardware to new hardware isn't always that bad (ex: LCDs over CRTs, Core 2 Duo's use significantly less power than P4s) not to mention that old hardware is re-used for 3rd world countries or poor families, local recreation centers, etc. Sounds like to me the occasional upgrade every shop makes every 3-5yrs isn't all that evil.
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.
At home, I have a 4 year old AMD system running FC6, running so fast, I wouldn't want to upgrade the hardware anytime soon. In fact, it still has an Athlon XP in there (32-bit), which are no longer available, so I can't upgrade without replacing almost everything (board, memory, graphics card). Strangely enough, some things even got faster (starting openoffice), and it runs fine with compz/beryl although I disabled it as it keeps distracting me to much. As long as I can keep up with Fedora Development, I'm happy. Strangely enough, my G4 Laptop, less then 2 years old, is quite slow by comparison.
How did I get modded troll? This is factual information. Depending on what you've been doing, the "dirt" in your clothes could be toxic. It can easily be a pollutant. And it is likely to end up in a landfill.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
The same hardware running the same OS is equally green. And, since one should not be logging in to a server directly, that means the system requirements for Windows is equally low.
The problem I've seen with Linux people is that they treat Windows servers like desktops: they always log right into them, use the Exchange bridgehead server to play their iTunes music and download their Quicktime film trailers, etc.
Linux people make quite possibly the worst Windows support people. The best ones are generally those who have either never worked with L/Unix, or else those who have completely abandoned that platform in order to become experts on Windows. The problem with L/Unix people is they are always whining about how Windows doesn't work the same way, then convince themselves that just because they have no idea what they are doing that Windows can't do what they want it to.
Windows is not Linux. Windows is not Unix. Get over it, learn what the f*ck you are doing, and get to work. Nobody pays you to whine (well, unless you work for Apple or Slashdot, that is).
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 customized OS.
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?
I used to hear that sort of argument back in the '60s, when the world population had just hit 3 billion. We were supposed to be starving and choking to death on air pollution long before now.
Surprise: Air and water are far cleaner in the developed world now than then. Still plenty of food to go around, despite a 6B world population, etc.
It seems technology improves with time in other ways than just scale. Meanwhile, the populations of developed countries actually fall short of replacement - with the continued expansion only the result of immigration.
Now there will no doubt be a limit to how much the earth can support. (If nothing else, eventually there'd be no room to stand.) But the doomsayers' extrapolations have been laughably wrong, decade after decade, and the methodology of the current crop seems no better (in fact far worse) than those of previous decades.
So I think it's a bit premature to start talking about requiring 2/3 of the human race to be liquidated if the remainder are to have technology. (However, switching from technological farming to subsistence farming would be a very effective way to bring about such a die-back.)
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
(emulation will only require MORE computing power than the actual Windows box)
Use WINE for any applications it supports (which is most of 'em these days).
The acronym stands for "Wine Is Not and Emulator". It doesn't "emulate" a machine running Windows.
What it fakes up is the API: The application runs at full CPU speed while the system and library calls are translated from those appropriate for Windows to the Linux/X equivalents or are supported by native replacement routines.
So the application itself is running at the same CPU speed. Any bets on whether Linux and X (even with system call translation) or Windows take longer to get things done when the application needs support? Or whether the Windows or Linux scheduler gives the application more CPU?
Bantam Dominique roosters crow a four-note song. Once you've heard it as "Happy BIRTHday" you can't NOT hear it that way
They're just saying, "Linux is greener because it doesn't offer as many features as Windows, and therefore doesn't need as fast a computer to run it, so you won't be upgrading as much and throwing your old hardware into the nearest river."
I'll take the modern hardware any day, and "thinking green" shouldn't interfere with technological progress.
it was also reckoned that running older hardware that didn't eat much power could also save energy. Collectors of old IMSAI rigs perked up immediately but were let down when it was explained they would go back as far as those solar-powered Casio calculators that all the most annoying people played music on and no farther if only so as not to cross the dreaded 8-track line. Retro people everywhere were confused because they couldn't quite remember which decade those were from and bit their lips furtively as they swapped anxious glances between their Atari 2600s and their Commodore 64s.
I went on and fired up my dual-core Windows rig knowing that although it might cost me more electricity, I didn't have to worry about recompiling anything every week when my favorite MMORPG issued their regular patches.
If my grammar and spelling are off, I am [distracted/tired/careless] (take your pick)
I've been following the power management stuff in Linux for a few months out of interest (I'm stuck with a P4 desktop which overheats in the summer). The one thing that sounds promising is the tickless kernel feature, which from what I gather makes the kernel timer use the system clock hardware instead of running a loop on the CPU, allowing it to go completely idle.
They also un-broke the P4 cpu frequency driver in 2.6.20, which I'd have to say I'm pretty grateful for.
A long time ago, like around 1998, I recall someone dual-booting Linux and Windows. He was bold enough to put his finger on the heat sink while the machine was turned on. Even though he was not running any user tasks, when the machine ran Windows, the CPU was really hot. But when he ran Linux, with no user tasks running, it was cold. The difference was whether idle time went to a spin loop (Windows) or to a halt instruction (Linux). Now, as I said, that was 1998. I haven't seen it studied or reported since. Does anyone know?