Green computing in linux, windows and osx

[aquavitae]

I recently read an article on green computing, and it got me thinking about how linux compares to osx and windows in terms of power usage and carbon emissions. Obviously it depends quite a bit on the hardware involved, but I would imagine that, on similar hardware, linux and osx would beat windows by far. Unfortunately I haven't managed to find any real data to back this up, except for whats given on Apple's website (http://www.apple.com/environment/complete-lifecycle/). Its interesting to see that Microsoft's website asks you to install silverlight first (great energy saving right there!) and doesn't give anything other than marketing retoric, not that I really expected anything else from them. Linux is even more difficult to find out about, probably because linux marketing is pretty much non-existant.

So if anyone has seen any concrete info on linux, osx or windows energy usage please could you post it.

[-grubby]

After some quick Googling: http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=880&num=2

[speedwell68]

I doubt there is really a lot in it. One thing I will say is that there is a lot less packaging and documentation associated with a Linux install. For example a Vista PC comes with a little sticker, a licence agreement and other documentation. It also comes with a recovery disc in a little wallet and then there is the serial number sticker too. If you go out and buy Windows, then there is an uber amount of packaging, shipping and production overheads. When I install Ubuntu I use a memory stick that can be used over and over. Maybe Linux does use slightly more power than Windows, but I bet the overall experience is more carbon neutral.

[aquavitae]

Obviously your googling skills are better than mine! Thats quite an interesting article, and not what I expected.

I've just found this one too: http://www.infoworld.com/d/developer-world/linux-beats-windows-2008-power-saving-measures-595?page=0,0 which contradicts the phoronix test, but also goes into quite a bit more depth about the variablility involved.

[aquavitae]

I doubt there is really a lot in it. One thing I will say is that there is a lot less packaging and documentation associated with a Linux install. For example a Vista PC comes with a little sticker, a licence agreement and other documentation. It also comes with a recovery disc in a little wallet and then there is the serial number sticker too. If you go out and buy Windows, then there is an uber amount of packaging, shipping and production overheads. When I install Ubuntu I use a memory stick that can be used over and over. Maybe Linux does use slightly more power than Windows, but I bet the overall experience is more carbon neutral.

Also, you can use the latest ubuntu on your 5 year old computer. Windows? A new PC every two years! So I'm quite sure that to total carbon footprint of a windows install than linux - just interested to see if it extends to the software too.

[openfly]

The term green computing is an oxymoron.

There's nothing "green" about electronics. The whole thing relies on the manufacturing of mass quantities of highly reactive chemicals and materials. And with the current rate of change in the industry a tremendous amount of waste.

But you know what? If anything the march of progress in information technology is the single most telling sign that "going green" is stupid. We're not looking to find a stable equilibrium in society much less on our planet. We're born of chaos, and what we seek is growth or evolution. Growing means changing, and that means reacting to and balancing the decisions we make in resource consumption and the associated management of processes involved with that. But that's not "green". That's seeking the ideal operating environment for any task, and through the ages that's not something that has changed as a target for us.

Why don't we be honest and stop praying to the false god of social ecology. Let's just step up and say, inferior designs will not be tolerated, and go about making sure that that mantra becomes a law of land. Systems shouldn't be "disposable", and it has nothing to do with some poor retarded fish that's on the verge of extinction because well, it's retarded. What it comes down to, is building efficient quality goods should be rewarded, and that's the heart and soul of meritocracy.

[Chronon]

The term green computing is an oxymoron.

There's nothing "green" about electronics. The whole thing relies on the manufacturing of mass quantities of highly reactive chemicals and materials. And with the current rate of change in the industry a tremendous amount of waste.

But you know what? If anything the march of progress in information technology is the single most telling sign that "going green" is stupid. We're not looking to find a stable equilibrium in society much less on our planet. We're born of chaos, and what we seek is growth or evolution. Growing means changing, and that means reacting to and balancing the decisions we make in resource consumption and the associated management of processes involved with that. But that's not "green". That's seeking the ideal operating environment for any task, and through the ages that's not something that has changed as a target for us.

You make some compelling points. On the surface, the same sorts of statements can be said about bacterial colonies. They only seek to grow, not to reach an equilibrium. Either extinction (of the population) or equilibrium may be imposed by reactive forces, regardless of the aims of the bacteria.

From my perspective, being aware of the forcing terms we apply to the dynamical system we call "the environment" is certainly self-serving. People call such awareness "green" at the moment. It's just a fashion of the time, IMO. Still, I think it is a prudent analysis to include for any growing species that is capable of exerting ever larger forces on its own environment and it may help us steer things away from negative outcomes in the future. Going "green" should not be viewed as a conflict with optimization of our operating environment, IMO. It should be regarded as an additional layer of analysis when determining what that is.



Why don't we be honest and stop praying to the false god of social ecology. Let's just step up and say, inferior designs will not be tolerated, and go about making sure that that mantra becomes a law of land. Systems shouldn't be "disposable", and it has nothing to do with some poor retarded fish that's on the verge of extinction because well, it's retarded. What it comes down to, is building efficient quality goods should be rewarded, and that's the heart and soul of meritocracy.
It has happened before that the market has 'chosen' a product that is surmised to be technically inferior to the competition. How do you wish to avoid this in the future? Is technically better always practically better? How do you judge quality in an objective manner?

Merit is qualitative and subjective. It seems as if you're proposing dropping one form of popular idealism in favor of another.

[openfly]

You make some compelling points. On the surface, the same sorts of statements can be said about bacterial colonies. They only seek to grow, not to reach an equilibrium. Either extinction (of the population) or equilibrium may be imposed by reactive forces, regardless of the aims of the bacteria.


We either take a hands off approach towards the development of people on a personal level, or we run the risk of tyranny.




From my perspective, being aware of the forcing terms we apply to the dynamical system we call "the environment" is certainly self-serving. People call such awareness "green" at the moment. It's just a fashion of the time, IMO. Still, I think it is a prudent analysis to include for any growing species that is capable of exerting ever larger forces on its own environment and it may help us steer things away from negative outcomes in the future. Going "green" should not be viewed as a conflict with optimization of our operating environment, IMO. It should be regarded as an additional layer of analysis when determining what that is.



I don't think we are really disagreeing here at all. Economic / Ecological impact obviously effects our ability to remain productive and functional. However, the problem currently inherent in our society is the methodology by which we view our metrics is built around quarter lengths of years. The result is an abject far reaching and near total short sightedness across almost every major industry. This is something that has proven devastating in far more than ecology. One would argue our recent "Great Recession" ( talk about over dramatization... ) was due in very large part to this short sightedness.

That being said, I don't like the idea of giving over credibility and certainly not authority to crazy naturalists. It's dangerous to be riding the wave of popularity simply because for now your goals are aligned. There may come a time when that wave rolls in on itself and you find yourself scraping reef.




It has happened before that the market has 'chosen' a product that is surmised to be technically inferior to the competition. How do you wish to avoid this in the future? Is technically better always practically better? How do you judge quality in an objective manner?

Merit is qualitative and subjective. It seems as if you're proposing dropping one form of popular idealism in favor of another.

If the "free" ( HAHAHA no really... ) market has failed to uphold an efficient meritocracy than we need to look at modifying, augmenting, or otherwise replacing it to meet our needs. It's just that simple. People are all too "well that's just the way it is" about some of this stuff, and it's dangerous as hell to be thinking like that. Far more dangerous in fact than the alternative.