Ubuntu is green.

[potrick]

Dear Ubuntu Community,

I've used Ubuntu exclusively on my machine for almost four years now, and I've always wanted a way to give back. Recently an assignment I got for a website I write for regularly gave me an opportunity.

In it I propose something we here already know: that Ubuntu is an extremely useful tool for giving life to older computers, which otherwise are left behind by proprietary systems and thrown away. Ubuntu is software with very relevant environmental capabilities, something I think we as a community need to push to environmentalists. Here's my contribution:

How to Refurbish or Recycle an Old Computer (http://ecohearth.com/eco-zine/home-and-renovation/895-how-to-refurbish-or-recycle-an-old-computer.html)

I know some of you might have technically relevant things to add, so I'd love it if you'd consider commenting on-site. The more knowledge imparted the better, and I know I didn't get everything onto there.

Thanks Ubuntu community. Keep on being awesome.

[aaaantoine]

Pros:
- You will save money short term by using older hardware.
- You will save materials by not disposing of older hardware.

Cons:
- By actively using said older hardware, you will be missing out on the energy efficiency and/or performance advantage of newer hardware. Long term, you may spend more money on your electric bill.

That is to say, a cutting-edge computer from 10 years ago probably eats a lot more energy than a green computer from today. And an entry level computer from 10 years ago won't be nearly as fast or useful as a ... green computer from today.

[RabbitWho]

Pros:
- You will save money short term by using older hardware.
- You will save materials by not disposing of older hardware.

Cons:
- By actively using said older hardware, you will be missing out on the energy efficiency and/or performance advantage of newer hardware. Long term, you may spend more money on your electric bill.

That is to say, a cutting-edge computer from 10 years ago probably eats a lot more energy than a green computer from today. And an entry level computer from 10 years ago won't be nearly as fast or useful as a ... green computer from today.


he has a good point, but don't be discouraged, don't think "green" think "cost effective/penny pinching" we're in a recession, a lot of people can't afford new computers.

[-grubby]

I could swear Ubuntu was brown :P

[RabbitWho]

I could swear Ubuntu was brown :P

Mint is green!

[potrick]

Cons:
- By actively using said older hardware, you will be missing out on the energy efficiency and/or performance advantage of newer hardware. Long term, you may spend more money on your electric bill.


Reminds me of the cash for clunkers debate. Yes, more fuel efficient vehicles are put on the market but cars that took carbon to produce are taken off the road before they otherwise would. Making computers is a very carbon intensive process, and we as a society to it way too much. Vista is a good example of bloated software driving the unnecessary sale of new computers.

Maybe someone here has the numbers handy, but I tend to favor using older computers and Ubuntu really enables me to do that.

[aaaantoine]

Reminds me of the cash for clunkers debate. Yes, more fuel efficient vehicles are put on the market but cars that took carbon to produce are taken off the road before they otherwise would. Making computers is a very carbon intensive process, and we as a society to it way too much. Vista is a good example of bloated software driving the unnecessary sale of new computers.

Maybe someone here has the numbers handy, but I tend to favor using older computers and Ubuntu really enables me to do that.

Note that I more or less listed the production issue as a pro.


- You will save materials by not disposing of older hardware.

[Nevon]

As a note, you should (if you can) use the abbr tag to explain abbreviations, rather than putting it in parantheses. For example:

<abbr title="Random-Access Memory">RAM</abbr>

[aaaantoine]

As a note, you should (if you can) use the abbr tag to explain abbreviations, rather than putting it in parantheses. For example:

<abbr title="Random-Access Memory">RAM</abbr>

Good to know. I've never seen this before (in code, not in a page). Thanks.

(The fact that it doesn't work in IE6 might have something to do with it. That browser can't go away soon enough. -_-)

[lisati]

Pros:
- You will save money short term by using older hardware.
- You will save materials by not disposing of older hardware.

Cons:
- By actively using said older hardware, you will be missing out on the energy efficiency and/or performance advantage of newer hardware. Long term, you may spend more money on your electric bill.

That is to say, a cutting-edge computer from 10 years ago probably eats a lot more energy than a green computer from today. And an entry level computer from 10 years ago won't be nearly as fast or useful as a ... green computer from today.
I keep some of my old hardware around for playing with and can relate to the speed issues. On the rare occasion that I fire up my old Win98SE machine, talk about SLOW to use! However, it seems to shut down quicker than Ubuntu, XP and Vista.
When I've done with some video editing that I need to get done by Monday afternoon, I might have a play with a CD that came with with a "Teach yourself C++" book that I scored to keep from our local library for $1 (one by Wileys)

I could swear Ubuntu was brown :P
Ditto!

Good to know. I've never seen this before (in code, not in a page). Thanks.


Another "ditto"!!!!

[hessiess]

Modern computers are massively overpowered for what they are used for, resulting in the CPU running idle 99% of the time. Older hardware or low power machines (ATOM/ARM based) would be a better match for the amount of resource which are actually required.

If you are prepared to dump all the modern applications and just use lightweight applications, mostly CLI, then an old P3 machine makes a perfectly useable desktop and is not noticeably slower than a new machene.

[aaaantoine]

Modern computers are massively overpowered for what they are used for, resulting in the CPU running idle 99% of the time.
Yes, but to compensate for this, manufacturers have introduced advanced power management features into their CPUs, chipsets, and GPUs. As a simple example, my Turion alternates between two different clock speeds (800MHz, 1600MHz) depending on current CPU load. That way, you use the power when it's needed, and save power when it's not.

Tangent: If manufacturers ever figure out how to scale power to near zero during idle time the same way they scale the CPU, without interfering with the system (the way suspend does), that will be an interesting time.


Older hardware or low power machines (ATOM/ARM based) would be a better match for the amount of resource which are actually required.
Agreed.

[hessiess]

Yes, but to compensate for this, manufacturers have introduced advanced power management features into their CPUs, chipsets, and GPUs. As a simple example, my Turion alternates between two different clock speeds (800MHz, 1600MHz) depending on current CPU load. That way, you use the power when it's needed, and save power when it's not.

I do know about CPU scaling and it helps to some degree, however I find that scaling CPU'st scale to full frequency far to often, resulting is more power wastage. For example my laptop has a 1.66 ghz dual core CPU which can scale down to 1000mhz, however if I lock it in the lower frequency, the battery life goes up by about 2 hours, so I get about 6 hours instead of 4 out of a 12 cell battery, with no noticeable performance hit (it still runs idle most of the time).

Your idea about sleeping when idle is good, however I doubt it would be possible without a completely redesigned hardware architecture. Which would mean that desktop versions of Windows wouldn't run on it. So because that is the dominant OS at the current point in time, it would be a non starter. I believe that embedded platforms such as smart phones are already capable of something simmaler to this.

The X86 architecture is extremely bloated and simply wasn't designed to have a low power consumption, in comparison to ARM which is a much simpler architecture and was designed for low power consumption from the start.

[Exodist]

he has a good point, but don't be discouraged, don't think "green" think "cost effective/penny pinching" we're in a recession, a lot of people can't afford new computers.

This :-)

[Old_Grey_Wolf]

Where I work, we are switching from CRT monitors to Flat Panel monitors.

You can extrapolate this example to include upgrades to CPUs, GPUs, and so forth.

Example:

The reason the company is moving to Flat Panel monitors is the lower electrical power consumption. The company can save money with the lower power consumption of Flat Panel monitors. The company can say that it is being "Green" by doing so. Nice public relations for the News Media.

I agree that the Flat Panels monitors use less energy.

The questions I have are:

1) What hazardous waist is produced in making the Flat Panel monitors?
2) If the monitors are made in another country, what are the country's standards for pollution?
3) Is the energy used to make the new monitors less than CRTs?
4) What is the effect on the environment when this new technology does get replaced and go into landfills?

I have problems with something being labeled as "Green". It is like the "Low Fat" label on food products.

What does it actually mean?

[juancarlospaco]

Nah, Linux Mint is green, Ubuntu is Brow/Orange
LOL :)