begin oe_protect.scr
Hans Schneider <hans_schneider@xxxxxx> espoused:
> Peter Köhlmann <peter.koehlmann@xxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>
>> Hans Schneider wrote:
>>
>>> Roy Schestowitz <newsgroups@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:
>>>
>>>> __/ [ Mark Kent ] on Thursday 01 February 2007 07:23 \__
>>>>
>>>>> begin oe_protect.scr
>>>>> Tim Fairchild <usenet@xxxxxxxxxx> espoused:
>>>>>> [H]omer wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Roy Schestowitz wrote:
>>>>>>>> Vista gets slated - by the Greens
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Save the planet and use linux. It will run on lower power PC's :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My wife is very happy with her new Mandriva 2007 on a pentium 3.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> WooHoo, not enough ram or video card to run Vista...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The environmental impact of proprietary software has yet to be fully
>>>>> explored, but it's most certainly enormous. Possibly as great as that
>>>>> of cars, if you consider the numbers involved.
>>>>
>>>> This applies to any industry where forced upgrades are needed. However,
>>>> you don't see cars going off the road because of minimal speed limits on
>>>> the highways.
>>>
>>> What are you talking over here? I do not understand what you are
>>> saying. How has proprietary SW hurted the environment more than Linux?
>>> Surely all these free CDs for Linux things are not very much green
>>> neither?
>>
>> So all those shiny new machines needed to run Vista come out of thin air.
>> Those high powered graphics adapters required to run Aero suck their power
>> from lightning
>
> And the machines Linux can be running on for DB servers and games? You
> are not surely serious about this bullshit? God. I think you are being
> adament that Windows is to blame.
Different question.
> What is the energy wasted making 350
> distros then if not wasteful for choice? Crazy talking.
Non sequitur.
The issue is that every forced upgrade cycle from Windows results in
hundreds of thousands, if not millions if MS have their way, of
abandoned, low-power consumption machines being buried in land-fills or
incinerated, whilst a whole new generation of even more power-hungry
computers are sold on to the same people, to do the *same thing* which
they're doing quite happily already.
The environmental impact of this is certainly colossal, and Microsoft
should be brought to task on this. Linux, on the other hand, will still
run on a 386 with 8M of ram, and because there are *so many* distros,
then there is certainly one, somewhere, which will run on the hardware
of your choice/availability.
Linux does not force upgrades, because Linux has no lock-in. Linux is,
therefore, for more environmentally friendly than Windows, particularly
important as even the US Government is finally accepting that it is both
man-made and potentially massively damaging and already in progress.
Btw - anyone notice that Exxon were offering huge sums of money to any
scientist prepared to sell his soul to criticise the UN's work on
this...
--
| Mark Kent -- mark at ellandroad dot demon dot co dot uk |
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help
the rabbit.
-- R.E. Shay
|
|
