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.
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.
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.
More importantly though, they are the shadow cabinet - so they must disagree with the government no matter what.
Usually they're just playing devil's advocate - if the two sides ever agree, then it's either a really important issue, or something they can't win votes on by being different.
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 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.
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.
Mi domando chi à il mandante di tutte le cazzate che faccio - Altan
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.
----------------------------------- My Other Sig Is Hilarious -----------------------------------
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