But if you're stuck with an old CPU a very good place to look is SilentPCReview.com. There is a thread in their forums with a list of undervoltable mainboards (can't post the direct link, cause the site is down at the moment).
Most Athlons undervolt quite nicely (mine goes from 1,5 Volts down to 1,35; wattages should be reduced by 12-15 watts). Remember that you don't sacrifice performance by undervolting. When you combine undervolting AND underclocking you can get Athlons that do consume less than 30 watts. With a really big heatsink you can cool such a modified CPU passively.
Area is a problem? There are sth. like a hundred million roofs in the US alone. And I estimate that less than 100 thousand are equipped with solar cells.
Price is THE problem for solar power now.
And your argument with the consumption of heat is somewhat funny.
First, energy consumption of mankind is significantly below 1 percent of the energy that the sun sends us. So there's more than enough for all of us.
Second, the energy isn't lost! If you power your computer what do you think all those vents do inside? Blow the heat out? Hmmm, so no major problem here. (same with your oven, your TV, your light bulbs, etc. etc.)
Undervolting is the biggest problem. There are a lot of boards that don't allow *under*volting (like all newer Asus MB, which *over*volt only).
Check this thread at SilentPCReview for a long list of boards that allow for undervolting. And add you board, if it is missing. Thanks.
And yes, it works. I have a Mobile Athlon running in an Epox 8RDA+. But sadly my core voltage only goes down to 1,4 volt and I guess that a Mobile Athlon can go far lower...
Yepp. Would be much cooler (and more useful for the rest of the world). But of course people tend to stick to the "not-invented-here"-syndrom. Dictators are even worse regarding this.
One point you should never forget is that the licence is not valid if not prompted. Not the GPL nor the EULA. So the content of the licences doesn't matter.
And nobody talks about a "conflict" with German laws; most of the points the article makes are merely uncertaincies.
Liability: Do you really think that anyone packaging OSS in the spare time would do this, if he was liable (for his hobby)?!? I'm sure that most developers would quit soon when they were sued.
Regrading Copylefting: You're right: I indeed understood copylefting differently.
And one last thing: As someone else pointed out, most of the things I write are only valid regarding consumers (e.g. the prompting thing). The laws don't protect businesses as well as consumers. So the GPL may be valid for businesses even if not prompted, but it almost definitly isn't for consumers.
But if OSS doesn't have a licence at all which applies to users of the software, then what? Is someone liable? Who is liable?
"Use at your own risk" *may* simply not apply.
(These are not my ideas, they are from the paper. At and at least they have to be asked. The paper is full of "ifs" and "mays"; it doesn't not say that OSS is impossible, that all OSS programmers can be sued, etc. )
First: The GPL doesn't apply for users, only for distributors.
Second: When the GPL doesn't apply, all normal laws apply. And this could mean, that the programmers are liable for their software. And may be sued. And that may be a problem. Not for the user alone, but for the programmer as well.
(I doubt this, but the points in the paper may be valid).
That nobody has (successfully) sued MS for their bad software doesn't mean that no software company whatsoever hasn't been sued for bad software products.
And the second point in my post is, when you don't have to agree to a licence (as you have to with most OSS), what licence does apply (the GPL only applies to distributors, not the users)? No licence at all? And then: Who is liable? And for what?
These questions are not answered so far. And that are some of the questions the ISV article asks.
But IAG (I am German). So excuses, when my assumptions that the US laws are different from the German laws are wrong. The things you describe are quite similiar to German laws (you own the copyright and you are liable for the things you produce and you can't claim otherwise (or at least, it's not very simple).
The article by the ISV just asks the same questions many people in the US ask regarding the GPL. I hope, that the GPL stands these questions, but it hasn't been tested in court, not in the US and not in Germany. IIRC the FSF Europe is working on some of these problems. This law stuff isn't simple. Especially when you try to create licences that work worldwide.
Btw., it's always a good idea to support your local FSF.
Every producer of every product *has* liabilities. If the software is under the GPL or the EULA doesn't matter. I should have made this clearer.
The question the article now asks is simply: Who is to blame, when something goes terribly wrong. When sth. with SAP goes terribly wrong: Sue them. When somebody distributes virus contaminated software: Sue them. But what, if the Linux kernel contains some backdoor? Blame Linus? Alan? Redhat?
And remember: The article is German is describes possible implications of using and producing OSS. Some laws here are somewhat different to the US laws. The concept of copylefting for example is difficult under German law (Urherbergesetz). "You own the copyright of everything you produce" is it's basis. That's to protect the producers. Bad for copylefting. And bad from the liability point of view. Cause you are liable for your products. The licence doesn't matter.
Did the examine at the (possible) liability problems? IMHO that seems to be most important point in the artcile for the creators and the users of GPL based software.
Open Source is NOT the main problem, the main problem *may* be the lack of liability.
Every producer of every product on Earth has some kind of liability. That's not different when producing software. Even if the EULA or the GPL claim otherwise. This problem gets worse with a software that is created by a team of volunteers in 10 countries around the world. Who is liable? Under which laws of which country?
There are a lot of other minor problems in the article. E.g. that you don't need to confirm that you agree to the GPL while installing the software. (That's similiar to unacceptable "with opening this box you agree to the EULA" when the EULA is *in* the box). You simply can't agree to sth. you haven't seen.
Btw., the article doesn't mention, how to fix the license. You'll get what you pay for...
Join the Club! It's 60 dollars that go 100% and directly to Mandrake. When you're buying the box, only sth. like 50% will go to Mandrake.
MandrakeClub is wonderful. You can vote for your preferred packages and the ones with the most votes get packaged by Mandrake. You'll get a lot of discounts for books, commercial software, etc. Silver members can download StarOffice for free. That alone is worth half of the yearly price.
It's really worth it AND you support Mandrake's future! (I don't find that the boy offers any real value.)
I'd rather say, taht we're in the stone age regarding effective energy consumption. There are Mobile CPUs that take less than a half of normal energy. From the technical point it's possible to build a very fast PC that uses less than half of what a normal computer needs. There are mobile CPU, high efficiency PSU, etc.
OK, fine. You know seem to get the idea, that I'm not a complete idiot and I'm sure sure you are not too.
Most of your points are somewhat valid, but IMHO aren't, while we are discussing "publicly funded software". Normal patterns do not apply. Every company need some kind of margin for bad times, some kind of margin for future investments (R&D), etc. o it's perfectly OK for any company to have margins and earn money (Ok, 90% margin for MS isn't a marin I find appropriate for a company selling insecure and mediocre products). But all that doesn't apply for publicly funded software.
Please: I'm not a communist or sth. I necer said, that everything should be free.
You are talking solely about prices and think prices create wealth/work/etc. Wrong. Wealth is created by products and services. Not by the prices paid.
We are talking about free software vs. commercial. Wealth is created, when this software is somewhat useful. Say: Gives fun. Creates better pictures for medicines. Or education software.
I'll try with an analogy: When Microsoft sells Office for 100 $, people save some time whiles writing their letters and thus create wealth. Now Microsoft raises the price to say 250 $. All customers have 150 $ less and Microsoft has a lot of money. What wealth is created exactly where? Not for Microsoft, but for the whole economy!!!
I hope you see the difference between inflation and more wealth. It's the product and/or the service that matters, not the price.
I don't have anything against prices or sth., I'm just making the statement, that free products/software are not the end of the world. There are even some scientists that claim, that the biggest movements in wealth were created by free innovations. Arguable, but at least an understandable point of view.
Slashdot Mirror
This is WAY cool!!!
But if you're stuck with an old CPU a very good place to look is SilentPCReview.com. There is a thread in their forums with a list of undervoltable mainboards (can't post the direct link, cause the site is down at the moment).
Most Athlons undervolt quite nicely (mine goes from 1,5 Volts down to 1,35; wattages should be reduced by 12-15 watts). Remember that you don't sacrifice performance by undervolting. When you combine undervolting AND underclocking you can get Athlons that do consume less than 30 watts. With a really big heatsink you can cool such a modified CPU passively.
Bye egghat.
Area is a problem? There are sth. like a hundred million roofs in the US alone. And I estimate that less than 100 thousand are equipped with solar cells.
Price is THE problem for solar power now.
And your argument with the consumption of heat is somewhat funny.
First, energy consumption of mankind is significantly below 1 percent of the energy that the sun sends us. So there's more than enough for all of us.
Second, the energy isn't lost! If you power your computer what do you think all those vents do inside? Blow the heat out? Hmmm, so no major problem here. (same with your oven, your TV, your light bulbs, etc. etc.)
Bye egghat.
Oh come on!
The article (you've read it, right?) was about burning macadamia nut shells. Which means "waste" used for CO2 neutral energy production.
What's wrong about that?
Bye egghat.
Plants need CO2 while growing, so burning them is CO2 neutral.
Bye egghat.
Undervolting is the biggest problem. There are a lot of boards that don't allow *under*volting (like all newer Asus MB, which *over*volt only).
...
Check this thread at SilentPCReview for a long list of boards that allow for undervolting. And add you board, if it is missing. Thanks.
And yes, it works. I have a Mobile Athlon running in an Epox 8RDA+. But sadly my core voltage only goes down to 1,4 volt and I guess that a Mobile Athlon can go far lower
Bye egghat.
Sudhian has a forum dedicated to HTPCs only.
HTPC forum.
There are some good HiFi like cases like the CoolerMaster ATC 600,610, 620 and 630.
The LianLi 9100, 9300, 9320 and 9400 are fine as well.
The other forums at Sudhian are interesting as well if you into XPC and similiar stuff.
Bye egghat.
You'll get two votes each week to vote for your favourite programs. The ones ranked highest will be packaged first. Very good idea.
Bye egghat.
Yepp. Would be much cooler (and more useful for the rest of the world). But of course people tend to stick to the "not-invented-here"-syndrom. Dictators are even worse regarding this.
Bye egghat.
If you're interested, there's a similiar setup in Spain.
Here's the link to a PDF, that describes their system.
Bye egghat.
One point you should never forget is that the licence is not valid if not prompted. Not the GPL nor the EULA. So the content of the licences doesn't matter.
And nobody talks about a "conflict" with German laws; most of the points the article makes are merely uncertaincies.
Liability: Do you really think that anyone packaging OSS in the spare time would do this, if he was liable (for his hobby)?!? I'm sure that most developers would quit soon when they were sued.
Regrading Copylefting: You're right: I indeed understood copylefting differently.
And one last thing: As someone else pointed out, most of the things I write are only valid regarding consumers (e.g. the prompting thing). The laws don't protect businesses as well as consumers. So the GPL may be valid for businesses even if not prompted, but it almost definitly isn't for consumers.
Bye egghat.
But if OSS doesn't have a licence at all which applies to users of the software, then what? Is someone liable? Who is liable?
"Use at your own risk" *may* simply not apply.
(These are not my ideas, they are from the paper. At and at least they have to be asked. The paper is full of "ifs" and "mays"; it doesn't not say that OSS is impossible, that all OSS programmers can be sued, etc. )
Bye egghat.
First: The GPL doesn't apply for users, only for distributors.
Second: When the GPL doesn't apply, all normal laws apply. And this could mean, that the programmers are liable for their software. And may be sued. And that may be a problem. Not for the user alone, but for the programmer as well.
(I doubt this, but the points in the paper may be valid).
Bye egghat.
That nobody has (successfully) sued MS for their bad software doesn't mean that no software company whatsoever hasn't been sued for bad software products.
And the second point in my post is, when you don't have to agree to a licence (as you have to with most OSS), what licence does apply (the GPL only applies to distributors, not the users)? No licence at all? And then: Who is liable? And for what?
These questions are not answered so far. And that are some of the questions the ISV article asks.
Bye egghat.
No, IANAL (thank God).
But IAG (I am German). So excuses, when my assumptions that the US laws are different from the German laws are wrong. The things you describe are quite similiar to German laws (you own the copyright and you are liable for the things you produce and you can't claim otherwise (or at least, it's not very simple).
The article by the ISV just asks the same questions many people in the US ask regarding the GPL. I hope, that the GPL stands these questions, but it hasn't been tested in court, not in the US and not in Germany. IIRC the FSF Europe is working on some of these problems. This law stuff isn't simple. Especially when you try to create licences that work worldwide.
Btw., it's always a good idea to support your local FSF.
Bye egghat.
Ah, thanks for that info. Very interesting. And somewhat contrary to the paper of the ISV (what else did you expect ...).
I hope, that the GPL stands these tests. But even under the US law that's not 100% sure.
Bye egghat.
I get your point, but it's not valid here.
Every producer of every product *has* liabilities. If the software is under the GPL or the EULA doesn't matter. I should have made this clearer.
The question the article now asks is simply: Who is to blame, when something goes terribly wrong. When sth. with SAP goes terribly wrong: Sue them. When somebody distributes virus contaminated software: Sue them. But what, if the Linux kernel contains some backdoor? Blame Linus? Alan? Redhat?
And remember: The article is German is describes possible implications of using and producing OSS. Some laws here are somewhat different to the US laws. The concept of copylefting for example is difficult under German law (Urherbergesetz). "You own the copyright of everything you produce" is it's basis. That's to protect the producers. Bad for copylefting. And bad from the liability point of view. Cause you are liable for your products. The licence doesn't matter.
Bye egghat.
Did the examine at the (possible) liability problems? IMHO that seems to be most important point in the artcile for the creators and the users of GPL based software.
Open Source is NOT the main problem, the main problem *may* be the lack of liability.
...
Every producer of every product on Earth has some kind of liability. That's not different when producing software. Even if the EULA or the GPL claim otherwise. This problem gets worse with a software that is created by a team of volunteers in 10 countries around the world. Who is liable? Under which laws of which country?
There are a lot of other minor problems in the article. E.g. that you don't need to confirm that you agree to the GPL while installing the software. (That's similiar to unacceptable "with opening this box you agree to the EULA" when the EULA is *in* the box). You simply can't agree to sth. you haven't seen.
Btw., the article doesn't mention, how to fix the license. You'll get what you pay for
Bye egghat.
Join the Club! It's 60 dollars that go 100% and directly to Mandrake. When you're buying the box, only sth. like 50% will go to Mandrake.
MandrakeClub is wonderful. You can vote for your preferred packages and the ones with the most votes get packaged by Mandrake. You'll get a lot of discounts for books, commercial software, etc. Silver members can download StarOffice for free. That alone is worth half of the yearly price.
It's really worth it AND you support Mandrake's future! (I don't find that the boy offers any real value.)
MandrakeClub Homepage.
Bye egghat.
Where did you get this info from? They claim in their FAQ, that most drives should be supported. DATs shouldn't be a problem for example.
Bye egghat.
Has anybody experiences with Bacula? An NT client is available, the server side is on **ix.
:-)
Just found it today, so I can't give any comments, but at least their claim is cool:
"It comes by night and sucks the vital essence from your computers."
Especially interesting would ba a comparison to Amanda.
Bye egghat.
I'd rather say, taht we're in the stone age regarding effective energy consumption. There are Mobile CPUs that take less than a half of normal energy. From the technical point it's possible to build a very fast PC that uses less than half of what a normal computer needs. There are mobile CPU, high efficiency PSU, etc.
Look at Silent PC Review to get an idea.
Bye egghat
OK, fine. You know seem to get the idea, that I'm not a complete idiot and I'm sure sure you are not too.
Most of your points are somewhat valid, but IMHO aren't, while we are discussing "publicly funded software". Normal patterns do not apply. Every company need some kind of margin for bad times, some kind of margin for future investments (R&D), etc. o it's perfectly OK for any company to have margins and earn money (Ok, 90% margin for MS isn't a marin I find appropriate for a company selling insecure and mediocre products). But all that doesn't apply for publicly funded software.
Bye egghat.
NoNoNo.
Please: I'm not a communist or sth. I necer said, that everything should be free.
You are talking solely about prices and think prices create wealth/work/etc. Wrong. Wealth is created by products and services. Not by the prices paid.
We are talking about free software vs. commercial. Wealth is created, when this software is somewhat useful. Say: Gives fun. Creates better pictures for medicines. Or education software.
I'll try with an analogy: When Microsoft sells Office for 100 $, people save some time whiles writing their letters and thus create wealth. Now Microsoft raises the price to say 250 $. All customers have 150 $ less and Microsoft has a lot of money. What wealth is created exactly where? Not for Microsoft, but for the whole economy!!!
I hope you see the difference between inflation and more wealth. It's the product and/or the service that matters, not the price.
I don't have anything against prices or sth., I'm just making the statement, that free products/software are not the end of the world. There are even some scientists that claim, that the biggest movements in wealth were created by free innovations. Arguable, but at least an understandable point of view.
bye egghat.
Bye egghat.
... someone did it with a C64, so someone else had to do with an Atari 800.
;-)
...)
Some things never change
(btw. the Atari hack ist of course *much* cooler than the C64
Bye egghat.