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.
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.
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......
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Baker's Law: Misery no longer loves company. Nowadays it insists on it
http://www.sigsegv.cx/
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
Linux might be greener but Windows has definately bluer screens.
839*929
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.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
Regardless of the greenness of Linux, you still need Windows to run it. Sounds ungreen to me.
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?
Je fume. Tu fumes. Nous fûmes!
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!
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
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.