Puppy Linux Discussion Forum Forum Index Puppy Linux Discussion Forum
Puppy HOME page : puppylinux.com
"THE" alternative forum : puppylinux.info
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

The time now is Fri 18 Apr 2014, 06:51
All times are UTC - 4
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Is Puppy Green?
Moderators: Flash, JohnMurga
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
Page 3 of 8 [109 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Author Message
Pizzasgood


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6270
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

PostPosted: Sun 01 Mar 2009, 19:14    Post subject:  

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.

_________________
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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
ecomoney


Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 2183
Location: Lincolnshire, England

PostPosted: Sun 01 Mar 2009, 20:51    Post subject:  

Quote:

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.

Quote:
"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 Mission

Sorry, my server is down atm!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger 
aarf

Joined: 30 Aug 2007
Posts: 3620
Location: around the bend

PostPosted: Sat 07 Mar 2009, 18:31    Post subject:  

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

_________________

ASUS EeePC Flare series 1025C 4x Intel Atom N2800 @ 1.86GHz RAM 2063MB 800x600p ATA 320G
_-¤-_

<º))))><.¸¸.•´¯`•.#.•´¯`•.¸¸. ><((((º>
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
Mr. Maxwell


Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 215
Location: Nebraska, USA

PostPosted: Sat 07 Mar 2009, 19:34    Post subject:  

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, 14:10; edited 2 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
hillside


Joined: 02 Sep 2007
Posts: 642
Location: Minnesota, USA. The frozen north.

PostPosted: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 13:31    Post subject:  

Quote:
Nuclear fusion is perfect stopgap technology.


You mean fission, right?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mr. Maxwell


Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 215
Location: Nebraska, USA

PostPosted: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 14:07    Post subject:  

Thanks, I missed that. Embarassed
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ecomoney


Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 2183
Location: Lincolnshire, England

PostPosted: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 14:22    Post subject: Something I heard recently  

Something I heard recently about the problems of the environment vs the problems making money.

Quote:
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 Mission

Sorry, my server is down atm!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger 
DMcCunney

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 16:56    Post subject:  

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ecomoney


Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 2183
Location: Lincolnshire, England

PostPosted: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 22:12    Post subject:  

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? Shocked

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 Cool

_________________
Puppy Linux's Mission

Sorry, my server is down atm!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger 
DMcCunney

Joined: 02 Feb 2009
Posts: 894

PostPosted: Sun 08 Mar 2009, 22:44    Post subject: Re: Something I heard recently  

ecomoney wrote:
Something I heard recently about the problems of the environment vs the problems making money.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
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.

Quote:
Check out the open source car!

http://www.theoscarproject.org/

Gimmie!!!!

It may be open source. It won't be free.
______
Dennis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Mr. Maxwell


Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 215
Location: Nebraska, USA

PostPosted: Mon 09 Mar 2009, 22:06    Post subject: Re: Something I heard recently  

DMcCunney wrote:
Quote:
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.

_________________
Super amazing game!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
ecomoney


Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 2183
Location: Lincolnshire, England

PostPosted: Mon 09 Mar 2009, 22:46    Post subject:  

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

_________________
Puppy Linux's Mission

Sorry, my server is down atm!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger 
Pizzasgood


Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 6270
Location: Knoxville, TN, USA

PostPosted: Fri 13 Mar 2009, 22:18    Post subject: Re: Something I heard recently  

Mr. Maxwell wrote:
DMcCunney wrote:
Quote:
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...

_________________
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

Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website 
ecomoney


Joined: 25 Nov 2005
Posts: 2183
Location: Lincolnshire, England

PostPosted: Sat 14 Mar 2009, 10:28    Post subject:  

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.

_________________
Puppy Linux's Mission

Sorry, my server is down atm!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website MSN Messenger 
VK6FUN

Joined: 18 Oct 2008
Posts: 127
Location: North Baandee, Western Australia

PostPosted: Sat 14 Mar 2009, 19:33    Post subject:  

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
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message 
Display posts from previous:   Sort by:   
Page 3 of 8 [109 Posts]   Goto page: Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Post new topic   Reply to topic View previous topic :: View next topic
 Forum index » Taking the Puppy out for a walk » Misc
Jump to:  

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
[ Time: 0.1121s ][ Queries: 12 (0.0085s) ][ GZIP on ]