Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 8th Jan 2007 23:34 UTC
Thread beginning with comment 199845
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 13:17 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 12:06 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-02-24
That was exactly my first thought. I don't think we or the environment really need to have more 24/7 machines running. In one room we replace all light-bulbs with energy-saving ones, in the other room we install a nice new server that someone wants us to have, and that perhaps improves our life a little... but probably not for the long run.
In the office we replace a dozen of servers and virtualize them because we realize the power, heat and environmental implications... and now we just move them to the homes :-(
I'm always wondering how much people *think* about running servers at home. Sure; you learn a lot from it, you have a bit of bandwidth so you can useful things as well... and the server itself was probably not that expensive - but it still consumes more energy (and 200/300 eur/$ a year?) than the average lightbulb you just replaced.
I don't really care about this if it's just the average geek doing this (could be me) - if MS wants every household to have this, I'm much more worried.
And they indeed make good botnets...