Jack Wallen, on ZDNet, argues that Linux can go a long way towards helping IT departments go green, and offers ten ways that Linux can help IT go green. I won't go into all ten reasons here -- I don't necessarily agree with them all -- but following are the high points.
First, he argues that because Linux requires less processor power and less advanced hardware than Windows or Mac OS X, you can use hardware much longer with Linux. That means less landfill problems, and less production of new equipment overall. He cites a study by the UK Office of Government Commerce in 2004 that claims that Windows users have to upgrade their computers twice as frequently as Linux users. The study concludes: "Industry observers quote a typical hardware refresh period for Microsoft Windows systems as three to four years; a major UK manufacturing organisation quotes its hardware refresh period for Linux systems as six to eight years."
Wallen also claims that Red Hat Linux uses less power than Windows Server 2008, and cites a study that says that Red Hat Linux servers beat Windows Server 2008 in 13 out of 16 tests of energy consumption.
Many of his other reasons, though, don't necessarily hold up, and some of them aren't really a comparison of Linux to other operating systems, but instead advice on how to make Linux greener. He points to netbooks as a reason that Linux is greener than other operating systems, but these days 80% or more of all netbooks ship with Windows installed, so that simply doesn't hold water.
Still, he has some intriguing points. I'd like to see a detailed comparison of energy consumption of Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux done some day. If I find one, I'll let you know.


Browse
Engage
Research










Laptop battery life
I like using linux very much but for me it empties my laptop's battery quicker then XP, and i hope there will be some fixes on that.
Beautiful irony
I kind of have to agree with this article for the most part, and it's just continually reinforcing the thought in my mind that Linux machines are going to end up being astronomically more cost effective in the long run. The only mitigating factor there is the cost to employ people who are proficient at actually running the machines.
IMO it's always better to employ skilled people to run skilled software (linux), instead of inept people to run inept software (msft).
Anyways that's my two cents,
Michael J. Riley
Linux is the best
I love fedora.
Linux is no doubt the best.
Have been reading here for some tricks:
http://techunits.com/content/list/linux
ROLF
Hey Mr FY Ballmer.
OMG, you're a freak. Cut your hair hippie and go get a real job.
FY Ballmer
Hey Mr WTF.
FY.
Linux=Lovely Inteligent Unobstrusive Xsystem
what does W.I.N.D.D.O.W.S. stand for?
Why
Incompetent
Net
Dooshbags
Deserve
Obsolete'n
whacky
Software
Greenest?
That would probably be their only achievement...
Working on this now
Been working on a hole overhaul of my systems at home. been documenting it on youtube. Based on what I'm reading I should be able to go from 1,800 watts per hours with 4 stations to 350 watts using atom procs & ltsp server.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UYyI1Bx0s8w
thats the vid.
RE:
I beg to differ. From my own personal testing, on average a fresh install of Ubuntu uses slightly less ram than a fresh copy of XP, let alone Vista. NOTE: Ubuntu measurement was with compiz enabled with fancy effects, and my CPU frequency scaling did in-fact work.
Also something to think about: The reason linux doesn't have support for the cutting edge is simply the fact that there are no paid devs out there coding drivers for every new piece of hardware. But then again, what servers use/need cutting edge hardware if you're trying to be green?
Netbook relevence is coming around the corner
"He points to netbooks as a reason that Linux is greener than other operating systems, but these days 80% or more of all netbooks ship with Windows installed, so that simply doesn't hold water."
It will hold a lot more water when arm enters the netbook arena, and compartively power hungry x86 based software solutions lose all relevence.
It also has relevance in the Moblin, which is arguably the future of x86 Linux, and which is being heavily pushed by Intel who can optimize the entire software stack according to their needs and priorities.
Missing details
What Mr. Wallen doesn't mention, because he is a biased zealot, is that many of the power saving features in Linux do not work. Features like standby, hibernation, frequency control, ect. Why? Poor drivers and outdated designs that are par for the course when it comes to Linux.
Indeed, older distros use much less processing power, but then again so did old copies of Windows 95. Take a modern Linux distro and throw in a fancy pants desktop provided by Gnome or KDE and you're looking at quadruple the CPU power vs Windows just to scroll the contents of a browser window. You can thank the outdated X server for that.
WTF?? Enough already
Why is it that every Linux article gets on the front page of Digg? Don't you hippies have anything better to do? Shouldn't you be off patching your kernel or something?
landfill problems
In this day and age, what battery or computer goes to landfills anymore? We have e-waste collectors now...
learn2modernsociety
This is also pointed at the macbook ads where they say less batteries in landfills... again, e-waste