Is Puppy Green?

[Mr. Maxwell]

Check out the open source car!

http://www.theoscarproject.org/

Gimmie!!!!

It may be open source. It won't be free.

And that is why software is the only place open source will ever be truly succesfull. If you are going to pay for something you want a guarantee it will work good, open source has no guarantee at all.

[ecomoney]

Google, ebay, wikipedia etc etc etc are all guarentees to me that open source will work, and provide more reliable service than propretary service. I would rather pay for infrequent repairs than one big lump some on a guarentee for something that fails a lot. The cost of repairs to big IT infrastructure is nothing compared to the loss of revenue that accurs due to the failure. "How quickly can it be repaired when it goes wrong, and how often does it go wrong" are key questions when choosing any technology.

I also have the dubious pleasure of supporting a puppy linux based system at a local garage, where I have also done a short stint running the service desk to cover absence. The mechanics spent half of their time battling designs which basically made things either very difficult to repair, or required expensive main dealer tools or diagnostic equipment to get working again. We had no choice but to pass this extra expense onto the owners. Newer cars are considerably worse than older cars, and it pains me to say that cars manufactured by British or American companies (i.e. Ford and Vauxhall/GM) are worse than other manufacturers for this kind of strategy. This has been my experience It reminded me very much of my days with Windows.

A car that was made with interchangeable components and was easy to fix (such as the 2CV or the VW Beetle) requires less much less effort and specialist skills effort to repair when it goes wrong. Linux has "interchangeable components", and if something goes wrong then it can usually be replaced, often with a better working "part" (a later version), or a part from another "manufacturer" (i.e. GRUB vs LILO) and the system can get running again.

DMcCunney, yes an "open source car" wouldnt be free (you would still have to pay someone to make, repair and service it for you) just as running Linux isnt actually free...it would just have a much lower "Total Cost of Ownership" (TCO).

I did read somewhere that a car is responsible for half of its energy use during its manufacture (actually making the metal and bending it into shape!), the other half being used with the fuel it burns during its useable life. Not withstanding improvements in fuel efficiency technology (the internal combustion engine is terribly inefficient and cant actualy be improved that much), if all cars could be made to last twice as long, this would mean that pollution from cars would effectively be decreased by a third.

Quite often, being "green" can save money too

[Pizzasgood]

Check out the open source car!

http://www.theoscarproject.org/

Gimmie!!!!

It may be open source. It won't be free.

And that is why software is the only place open source will ever be truly succesfull. If you are going to pay for something you want a guarantee it will work good, open source has no guarantee at all.

No, it has no inherent guarantee, but only because the guranteed-ness is completely independent from the open-sourced-ness. Most open source programs include a statement saying that there's no guarantee, because people don't like being held accountable for the dumb things other people can do to their computer, and also because in the open source software world, people tend to use things that are still in development.

Including a guarantee on a set of plans (not a finished product) that was created and released for free by a loose group of volunteers would be difficult I imagine. But anybody who builds and sells the product itself could test it extensively and offer their own guarantees and warranties, just like any other company. People who want to grab the plans and build it themselves would have to rely on their own engineering abilities and the testimonies and advice of others. But the sort who are willing to build their own car are probably not the sort who require absolute proof that it will in fact work ahead of time...

[ecomoney]

In our local newspaper ads for puppy linux computers, Ecomoney Systems Ltd always put "Guaranteed" free from windows viruses for the life of the computer". What other I.T. company can do that?

With our previous Cybercafe setup, I managed to go five months without needing to any maintenance work. This was only brought to a halt because the actual hard disk in the smoothwall server failed.

Nothing in life is a certainty...but compared with the "competition", collaboratively authored, independently peer-reviewed and patent free technology will always vastly surpass anything in terms of reliability that has commercially driven motives to fail prematurely.

[VK6FUN]

Getting bacK to the topic at hand.....

When my computer is running MS Windows It draws less than 100mA when idling. When working hard it goes up to 1.5A. It is also cool.

When my computer is running Linux under the same conditions it pulls 2A whether idling or working hard. It is always very hot.

No doubt some of the smart-arses will say "This makes it greener because it reminds you to turn it off"

So the inescapable conclusion is that if you want to run anything that listens, don't run linux.

LINUX IS BROWN NOT GREEN.

I have read a bunch of specious crap about development costs and one post from a looney that thinks we should be all heading off to some other galaxy. I think you are already there mate.

cheers
73deVK6FUN
Pete

[Aitch]

sustainability!
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..

Gosh!

And there was me thinking that a lot of this 'global warming' malarky was because it has taken thousands of years of accumulated sunshine to produce the 'fossil fuels' we burn in no time, thus releasing thousands of solar hours worth of heat to;
keep warm
make electricity
run furnaces
cook food
drive vehicles
create work
extend daylight
get entertained
play with technology i.e. PCs/phones/gameconsoles/TVs/ipods
etc

and now we have the geothermal energy to release, too

so no probs, then, Lobster - aarf's got it sussed

[tongue firmly in cheek]

Aitch

[VK6FUN]

If you really want to see for yourself just how greedy the penguin is, place two identical laptops side-by-side, running on batteries.

One running linux, one running the operating system you hate so much.

Be sure they are both doing the same thing. For many of you this will be impossible because your linux system will be incapable of driving some of your hardware.

Notice which one dies first, and by how long.

Report your results here, if you are not too embarrassed.

When you must conserve every last joule linux is a joke.

cheers

73deVK6FUN
Pete

[Pizzasgood]

FYI, Linux itself does support slowing down the processor when it's idling. Unfortunately, last I checked Puppy doesn't have that enabled by default. But it does work in Puppy. I tested it last summer. I don't remember quite what I did, but it involved echoing some stuff into /proc. There are instructions on the forum. You should track them down and try comparing it then.

(Note: I'm not talking about simple throttling - that is easy, but not as slick. With throttleing, you manually tell the kernel how fast to run the processor by echoing a number to /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling. What I'm talking about above will automatically slow down when idling, and attempt to quickly speed back up when being used.


And to preempt any smart-asciis in the audience, yeah, I know. Fat lot of good it does when you have too dig up obscure commands to enable it. Somebody with nothing better to do should write up (or track down) a gui for it.

[VK6FUN]

Note that I have read this

http://johnmeister.com/tmcp.pdf

but my results are VERY different.

I suspect that default MS Windows install was able to drive more hardware like wifi and bluetooth.

apples with apples problem.

or is it just straight-out bs?

73deVK6FUN
Pete

[panzerpuppy]

I would keep the small version of seamonkey I made, since its smaller than firefox, or opera.

I'd add Opera to the Green Puppy and set it as a default browser.
Opera uses a lot less CPU (and RAM) than SeaMonkey when scrolling and displaying pages.

Web pages with Flash videos are another problem.The videos should be downloaded and played back with MPlayer/VLC/GXine.

I'd enable Xorg 2D/3D/OpenGL acceleration out of the box.2D video acceleration saves a lot of energy.

[Pizzasgood]

I suspect that default MS Windows install was able to drive more hardware like wifi and bluetooth.

No excuse. If it is capable of running them fine. But it should not actually be running them. If they are enabled and broadcasting when unneeded, then Windows is wasting power.

[VK6FUN]

a typical smart-arse answer and a cop-out.

You are saying that an operating system's inability to operate hardware is a feature.

cheers
73deVK6FUN
Pete

[panzerpuppy]

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.

Game developers will start to use inefficient languages (i.e. BASIC) to program their latest virtual-reality first person %^$#@ simulators.
CPU power will never be enough.

Take GTA IV as an example - even your shiny new high-end quad core with a monster videocard can't handle the shoddily programmed GTA IV.
But wait - the game flies on a console that's 20 times less powerful than your monster PC.
Now that's what I call progress

[panzerpuppy]

FYI, Linux itself does support slowing down the processor when it's idling. Unfortunately, last I checked Puppy doesn't have that enabled by default. But it does work in Puppy. I tested it last summer. I don't remember quite what I did, but it involved echoing some stuff into /proc. There are instructions on the forum. You should track them down and try comparing it then.

(Note: I'm not talking about simple throttling - that is easy, but not as slick. With throttleing, you manually tell the kernel how fast to run the processor by echoing a number to /proc/acpi/processor/CPU0/throttling. What I'm talking about above will automatically slow down when idling, and attempt to quickly speed back up when being used.


And to preempt any smart-asciis in the audience, yeah, I know. Fat lot of good it does when you have too dig up obscure commands to enable it. Somebody with nothing better to do should write up (or track down) a gui for it.

It would be great to enable this by default in a future version of Puppy.

[VK6FUN]

maybe developers could have a look here

http://www.lesswatts.org/index.php

for some good tips.

powertop is an eye-opener on intel processors.


cheers
73deVK6FUN
Pete

[Aitch]

Hmm

& I suspect what PG was referring to was probably an implementation of the OnDemand Governor feature in the kernel

http://www.kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/ ... -paper.pdf

see sample attached

It seems to me that the whole ethos of linux, [or any *nix] only calling modules as needed must make it more efficient?
[Don't know how a Mac OSX or SunOS (Solaris?) system might compare?]

Interesting topic, no doubt there'll be more changes....

Maybe this will assist? - A benchmarking/testing suite used for comparisons

http://murga-linux.com/puppy/viewtopic.php?t=28706

Aitch

[DMcCunney]

It seems to me that the whole ethos of linux, [or any *nix] only calling modules as needed must make it more efficient?
[Don't know how a Mac OSX or SunOS (Solaris?) system might compare?]

Analogous, since they share a similar design philosophy. Mac OS/X is a BSD variant. So is the original SunOS (no surprise, since Sun co-founder Bill Joy was the chief architect of BSD when he was a grad student at UC Berkeley.) Solaris is the result of an AT&T sponsored effort to create an OS that merged the System V and BSD flavors.

Lots of things are started on bootup by *nix boxes as daemons, just like lots of services are run on Windows.

On laptops, power efficiency is more than just CPU usage. The docs for my Fujitsu Lifebook, for example, recommend things like reducing screen brightness to the lowest comfortable usage level (since screen display is a major power use), and disconnecting things like PCM-CIA cards when not in use because they are powered by the system. (I have a USB 2.0 PCM-CIA card in the Lifebook.)

Linux may be able to do better on default power saving features than it does, but I doubt it can auto-adjust screen brightness to comfortable levels or get users to disconnect power using hardware when they aren't using it...
______
Dennis

[rjbrewer]

My laptop draws 18 watts at desktop and 34 watts when
watching a streaming video.

Decreasing screen brightness from max to minimum saves
2.34 watts of power. If I have the laptop running 24/7 365
days a year, that will save me $2.05 a year.

Having pcmcia cards plugged in seems to be negligible,
unless devices are attached and running.

[DMcCunney]

My laptop draws 18 watts at desktop and 34 watts when
watching a streaming video.

Decreasing screen brightness from max to minimum saves
2.34 watts of power. If I have the laptop running 24/7 365
days a year, that will save me $2.05 a year.

The point of Fujitsu's commentary for my machine wasn't cost savings when plugged into an outlet - it was battery life savings when not plugged in.

Obvious, the cost saving method is "Don't watch streaming video..."
______
Dennis

[rjbrewer]

My laptop drops from 800mhz to 650 mhz and minimum
screen brightness when running from battery.