Is Puppy Green?

Puppy related raves and general interest that doesn't fit anywhere else
Message
Author
User avatar
hillside
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun 02 Sep 2007, 18:59
Location: Minnesota, USA. The frozen north.

#21 Post by hillside »

I always assumed money was printed by governments, i didnt realize that it was a gift from the gods.
I expect you are referring specifically to Representative money or Symbolic money, in which case, you are absolutely correct.

Certain resources, which can also be used as money, certainly seem to be "given from the gods." Many of these resources are limited. Re-using resources reduces the stress of limited availability. Thus, Puppy is green -- at least in certain ways. (One often has to use qualifiers and weasel words since so many answers seem to be predicated on assumptions within the question.)

User avatar
sunburnt
Posts: 5090
Joined: Wed 08 Jun 2005, 23:11
Location: Arizona, U.S.A.

#22 Post by sunburnt »

Solar seemed great until I found out that they lose 1/2 their output in 10 to 20 years.
So they need to be replaced after that time ( expensive & nongreen! ).
The new solar cells may last longer, I don't know.
They're simple to use & maintain but don't pan out so well for large powerful setups.

Wind generators last 10 to 20 years with little to no maintenance.
Expensive to setup & maintain but they're rebuildable & so ecofriendly.
They work very well for larger high power setups ( house & up ).

cthisbear
Posts: 4422
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2006, 22:07
Location: Sydney Australia

#23 Post by cthisbear »

" The production of these film-like solar cells will be literally as easy as printing money,

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#24 Post by DMcCunney »

01micko wrote:
DMcCunney wrote:Yes, Puppy could run on one of those monitors. Just dispense with X and GUIs and do everything from a command line... :)
The monitor, maybe, some serious kernel hacking would be needed for anything else from that era! (IMO)
That's why I specified the monitor. I'm not sure you could get Linux to run on an AT.

The AT units used the Intel 80286 CPU. There were various attempts to get Unix running on them, and none worked well because of architectural issues with the CPU. (Like, it only allowed one real mode session at a time, and there was an instruction to enter protected mode and get a larger virtual address space, but none to leave it. You had to do a CPU reset. ) Also, Intel CPUs use a segmented architecture, instead of a flat linear address space.

On the original PC using the 8088 chip, you had a total of 1MB of addressable memory, and a segment was 64KB. MS-DOS had six different memory models a programmer had to be aware of, depending on whether their code and data fit in a segment or slopped over to multiple segments. A 286 had virtual memory, but IIRC, a segment was 16MB, which is nothing by today's standards. The 386 was a proper 32 bit processor with better memory management capabilities, more than one rael mode session at a time was possible, and a segment on a 386 was 4GB.

Unix became a lot more possible on Intel CPUs when the 386 was available.

OTOH, I still own an AT&T 3B1 computer, which was a desktop machine intended to compete with the IBM PC. It used a 10 mhz Motorola 68010 CPU, with a bit mapped monochrome console screen and GUI, and would boot and run a version of AT&T Unix System V Release 2 and run apps and perform useful work in one megabyte of memory. Give it more and it flew. I had a client back then using a 3B1 with four attached ANSI terminals and a printer, running a custom distribution management application. The box had 2MB of RAM. Performance was acceptable.

I looked at my 3B1, then I looked at my AT clone which just about ran Windows 3.11 in 8MB of RAM, gazed in teh general direction of Redmond, WA, and said "Microsoft, what are you doing?" I stilll say that.
______
Dennis

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#25 Post by DMcCunney »

sunburnt wrote:Solar seemed great until I found out that they lose 1/2 their output in 10 to 20 years.
So they need to be replaced after that time ( expensive & nongreen! ).
The new solar cells may last longer, I don't know.
They're simple to use & maintain but don't pan out so well for large powerful setups.

Wind generators last 10 to 20 years with little to no maintenance.
Expensive to setup & maintain but they're rebuildable & so ecofriendly.
They work very well for larger high power setups ( house & up ).
Hmmm.

Solar cells lose half their output in 10-20 years and need to be replaced.

Wind generators last 10-20 years.

So in 10 or 20 years, you are looking at costs, either way.

Wind power and photovoltaic share two qualifications: they are capital intensive and they are site dependent. That is, they cost a lot to build/install, and can't be used everyplace. Wind turbines are big and require large open spaces to put wind farms. Photovoltaics require a lot of surface area in places where you get a lot of sun.

Both are valuable, but neither is usable everywhere, and neither by itself is a panacea.
______
Dennis

User avatar
rjbrewer
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue 22 Jan 2008, 21:41
Location: merriam, kansas

#26 Post by rjbrewer »

DMcCunney wrote

I've got Puppy running on an old notebook I was given by a friend, who bought a newer, faster system. It's a device using power in my home that wasn't there before, and I now use more energy because I'm running Puppy.
I also have Puppy running on an old notebook I was given by
a friend; but I use less energy now. The secret is to "turn off"
the less efficient device when using the more efficient one. LOL

rjb

[/b]

Inspiron 700m, Pent.M 1.6Ghz, 1Gb ram.
Msi Wind U100, N270 1.6>2.0Ghz, 1.5Gb ram.
Eeepc 8g 701, 900Mhz, 1Gb ram.
Full installs

aarf

#27 Post by aarf »

rjbrewer wrote:DMcCunney wrote

I've got Puppy running on an old notebook I was given by a friend, who bought a newer, faster system. It's a device using power in my home that wasn't there before, and I now use more energy because I'm running Puppy.
I also have Puppy running on an old notebook I was given by
a friend; but I use less energy now. The secret is to "turn off"
the less efficient device when using the more efficient one. LOL

rjb
it is groundbreaking discoveries like this that will get us to that paradise planet in the distant galaxy.

User avatar
01micko
Posts: 8741
Joined: Sat 11 Oct 2008, 13:39
Location: qld
Contact:

#28 Post by 01micko »

aarf wrote:
rjbrewer wrote:DMcCunney wrote

I've got Puppy running on an old notebook I was given by a friend, who bought a newer, faster system. It's a device using power in my home that wasn't there before, and I now use more energy because I'm running Puppy.
I also have Puppy running on an old notebook I was given by
a friend; but I use less energy now. The secret is to "turn off"
the less efficient device when using the more efficient one. LOL

rjb
it is groundbreaking discoveries like this that will get us to that paradise planet in the distant galaxy.
Obviously
Puppy Linux Blog - contact me for access

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#29 Post by Pizzasgood »

there is enough geothermal energy in this planet to last so far into the future that earthlings will have long left for "greener" pastures in another galaxy before it is exhausted, even if it is used in the most inefficient manner available.
Never, ever underestimate the human race's ability to waste.

Just look at computers. Every time the processing speed increases, software adds enough bloat to compensate.

Increase the energy available, and we will find a use for it. Things that were once expensive and rare due to excessive power needs would become cheep and widespread.

If you build it, they will come.


EDIT: Though, I'm not sure whether we could find a fast enough means of extracting the energy to cause any issues. In that sense, yes it could last for a long long time.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

aarf

#30 Post by aarf »

Never, ever underestimate the human race's ability to waste
.....
I'm not sure whether we could find a fast enough means of extracting the energy
implies >>>> however it is allowed to underestimate the human race's ability to extract the energy.

User avatar
Pizzasgood
Posts: 6183
Joined: Wed 04 May 2005, 20:28
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

#31 Post by Pizzasgood »

Getting energy is much harder than wasting it. And humans are lazy.

We could probably do it, but the effort it would require to figure out how to extract the energy at such a fast rate would probably be much more than the effort to get the same amount of energy through orbital solar power stations. And those can also be scaled up much larger than geothermal - the sun outputs obscene amounts of energy, very ripe for the wasting.

Not that I'm advocating solar over geothermal. Just saying that when it comes to very large amounts, solar becomes cheaper and simpler. I don't know how they compare at the scales we're dealing with in the present. My guess is that geothermal is more practical. Especially if you're in a good location.
[size=75]Between depriving a man of one hour from his life and depriving him of his life there exists only a difference of degree. --Muad'Dib[/size]
[img]http://www.browserloadofcoolness.com/sig.png[/img]

User avatar
ecomoney
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 07:00
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

#32 Post by ecomoney »

i always assumed money was printed by governments, i didnt realize that it was a gift from the gods.
Money isnt printed by governments, money is printed by those that govern.
"Give me control of a nation's money
and I care not who makes the laws. - Mayer Amschel Rothschild"
It also happens to be the same people that have so much money "invested" in (i.e. lent to) current technologies, which is why were still using the 120 year old internal combustion engine/fossil fuel technology.

Linux is a shining example of what free technology can achieve compared to the same technology with commercial restrictions. Puppy linux has the added advantage that it makes this technology accessible to new users, makes shared free knowledge accessible to them, and will essentially triple the useable life of a big source of environmental pollution...obselete computers.

I believe once people realise the superiority of non commercial software technology, they will automatically wonder how it might also apply to cars, aviation, energy, and hopefully even how we exchange our time, goods and skills.

Thats basically why Im here.
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]

Sorry, my server is down atm!

aarf

#33 Post by aarf »

DMcCunney wrote: photovoltaic share two qualifications: they are capital intensive and they are site dependent. That is, they cost a lot to build/install, and can't be used everyplace.
______
Dennis
this guy would have you believe otherwise :watch the video

User avatar
Mr. Maxwell
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 23:56
Location: Nebraska, USA

#34 Post by Mr. Maxwell »

Lets see how you guys take this...

Nuclear fission is perfect stopgap technology. It's clean, efficient, and the new reactor designs are much safer then the old ones. It's perfect to use until alternate technologies (solar, wind, geothermal) take over because it is cheap and extreamly cost effective, plus there is a huge amount of fuel avalible. Also, being from Lincoln, Nebraska I get a large part of my energy from a Nuclear power plant and it is very cheap. However I think the long term solution is to develop fusion reactors as those will be even more cost effective and even more abundant fuel. But fusion is a long ways off, which is why we need more fission.

As far as puppy goes, the average new laptop uses less than 100 watts, computers are not where we need to focus clean energy, cars are what we need to focus on.
Last edited by Mr. Maxwell on Sun 08 Mar 2009, 18:10, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
hillside
Posts: 633
Joined: Sun 02 Sep 2007, 18:59
Location: Minnesota, USA. The frozen north.

#35 Post by hillside »

Nuclear fusion is perfect stopgap technology.
You mean fission, right?

User avatar
Mr. Maxwell
Posts: 215
Joined: Sat 30 Aug 2008, 23:56
Location: Nebraska, USA

#36 Post by Mr. Maxwell »

Thanks, I missed that. :oops:

User avatar
ecomoney
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 07:00
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

Something I heard recently

#37 Post by ecomoney »

Something I heard recently about the problems of the environment vs the problems making money.
A man works in a lightbulb factory. After working there thirty years one day he has an idea and runs to his bosses office saying "BOSS! BOSS! Ive just figured it out, if you make the lightbulb this way then it will last twice as long."

The boss says "Get out of my office your sacked"
Quite frankly, Microsoft has no commercial incentive to make their products reliable in the long term, as people would simply cease to continue paying them their licience fees. They have learned, as Windows is the only operating system they have heard of, they are much more likely to just go out and buy a new computer when their present one fails...complete with a new licience tax to Microsoft.

Open Source is non commercially driven, i.e. no one is out to "maximise return" and decrease "mean time to failure", this is why linux is the future.

Open Source development methods doesnt just have to apply to computer software technology, although it has been until now the only place it has done well in the mainstream because of the gross "Lightbulb effect" inherent in Microsoft Products.

Check out the open source car!

http://www.theoscarproject.org/

Gimmie!!!![/quote]
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]

Sorry, my server is down atm!

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

#38 Post by DMcCunney »

Mr. Maxwell wrote:Nuclear fission is perfect stopgap technology. It's clean, efficient, and the new reactor designs are much safer then the old ones. It's perfect to use until alternate technologies (solar, wind, geothermal) take over because it is cheap and extreamly cost effective, plus there is a huge amount of fuel avalible. Also, being from Lincoln, Nebraska I get a large part of my energy from a Nuclear power plant and it is very cheap. However I think the long term solution is to develop fusion reactors as those will be even more cost effective and even more abundant fuel. But fusion is a long ways off, which is why we need more fission.

I wouldn't call it "perfect", but I would call it necessary. We have ever increasing demands for electricity, which means more generating capacity. Generators aren't terribly efficient: ultimately, they are taking chemical energy and converting it to heat, using the heat to boil water to generate steam to spin turbines producing mechanical energy, and converting the mechanical energy to electrical energy because the turbines power the generators, with conversion loses at each step.

It's a fraught question, because new electrical generating capacity is enormously expensive, with the question of where the money to build it will come from, and something has to power the plants. For the most part in the US, generating plants are coal, natural gas, or oil fired. Hydro electric power exists, but most places where a dam could be put to generate power already have one. Geothermal is nice if you happen to have it available, and wind power is only starting to make a contribution (and has the issue of where you put the wind farms.) You also have political issues involved in siting such things, as most folks agree they are needed, but nobody wants in their neighborhood...

The US has huge coal reserves, but coal is "dirty" power, and a coal fired plant releases more radiation into the environment than a nuclear plant. Nuclear has been out of favor in the US for decades, but the are signs that is changing, as other sources of power for generating plants are either too dirty (coal) or increasingly expensive (oil and natural gas). There were reports recently that the Tennessee Valley Authority in the US was resuming operation on a shut down nuclear plant, and planning to complete one on which construction had been suspended some time back.

One of the problems affecting US nuclear power use is where to get the nuclear techs to operate the plants. The previous principle source of nuclear power technicians had been the US Navy, but the Navy has been cutting back on nuclear powered craft, so ex-Navy nuclear workers are in short supply. Some outfits in the nuclear business have started importing power plant techs from Russia...

But nuclear power is only one facet of the problem. Nuclear power is a decent way to generate electricity, but electricity is about 25% of the total national energy budget in the US. Resident and light commercial heating and cooling, heavy industrial heating and cooling, and transportation make up the other 75%, and coal and oil are still the main power sources there.
______
Dennis

User avatar
ecomoney
Posts: 2178
Joined: Fri 25 Nov 2005, 07:00
Location: Lincolnshire, England
Contact:

#39 Post by ecomoney »

I think we can study this in reverse, and draw parallels from the existing industry.

A few months back, I went into a local computer shop to get some bits for a client with a newer computer that I didnt have in stock. I got chatting to the boss there, who was proudly displaying their "Microsoft Vertification" in the window. I gave him the news about this amazing operating system that could run on ancient computers, never caught viruses, and was free from liciencing restrictions, I asked if he would like me to demo it to him.

He said quite plainly, that most of his business comes from selling new computers, cleaning and repairing virus infected computers, and reselling windows liciences, who advertised his product for him. Why would he want to change? :shock:

My point is, while there are so many people making money from the technology we have now, what incentive is their to switch to cleaner more efficient ENERGY technologies?

There needs to be a change in how we measure what is "profitable" before we can see major mainstream use of renewables in energy production.

Either that or we need to make it so damn good no one can argue 8)
Puppy Linux's [url=http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?p=296352#296352]Mission[/url]

Sorry, my server is down atm!

DMcCunney
Posts: 889
Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009, 00:45

Re: Something I heard recently

#40 Post by DMcCunney »

ecomoney wrote:Something I heard recently about the problems of the environment vs the problems making money.
A man works in a lightbulb factory. After working there thirty years one day he has an idea and runs to his bosses office saying "BOSS! BOSS! Ive just figured it out, if you make the lightbulb this way then it will last twice as long."

The boss says "Get out of my office your sacked"
Which makes the boss short-sighted, like too many other business executives. Make a bulb that will last twice as long, and you can charge more for it and make a higher margin. One of the4 things becoming popular in the US at the moment are bulbs that are mini-fluorescents. They plug into a standard light socket, but are not incandescent bulbs. They last a lot longer, run much cooler, and use far less power for the equivalent amount of light produced. People can same money on electric bills by using them, and are starting to realize it.
Quite frankly, Microsoft has no commercial incentive to make their products reliable in the long term, as people would simply cease to continue paying them their licience fees. They have learned, as Windows is the only operating system they have heard of, they are much more likely to just go out and buy a new computer when their present one fails...complete with a new licience tax to Microsoft.
This isn't quite the case.

Please remember that consumers aren't the main drivers of what MS does. MS's real market is business users, not consumers Their customer is the CIO who can sign off on a site license for 10,000 copies of Windows.

Vista has had slow uptake in part because most businesses have been in no hurry to adopt it. Company wide upgrades are are time consuming and expensive, and are not undertaken lightly. (I have been a corporate IT type who helped perform such upgrades. I speak from experience.) Vista offered nothing compelling to businesses to encourage them to upgrade from XP, and many if no most chose to wait for Windows 7. That's gotten promising earl;y reviews, but how well it will do when actually released is another matter.

MS is (if slowly) responding to pressure from business users who want higher reliability and lower total cost of ownership. Windows has come a long way in stability and robustness from the 3.X and 9.X days.

Businesses do have alternatives if Microsoft becomes too annoying, and MS knows it.
Open Source is non commercially driven, i.e. no one is out to "maximise return" and decrease "mean time to failure", this is why linux is the future.
Oh, I don't know. Some open source is indeed commercially driven, but not in the same way as closed-source proprietary software. Companies like Red Hat make a living out of open source. They don't sell the software - that's free. They do sell service and support, and are one of the answers to management's question "Who do we call if it breaks?" when open source software is proposed fior use in the company.
Open Source development methods doesnt just have to apply to computer software technology, although it has been until now the only place it has done well in the mainstream because of the gross "Lightbulb effect" inherent in Microsoft Products.
The development model is broadly applicable. There's an open source CPU development effort, too.
Check out the open source car!

http://www.theoscarproject.org/

Gimmie!!!!
It may be open source. It won't be free.
______
Dennis

Post Reply