Linked by Howard Fosdick on Tue 15th Jun 2010 21:06 UTC
Linux All of us who use computers create a problem we rarely consider. How do we dispose of them? This is no small concern. Estimates put the number of personal computers in use world-wide today at about one billion. The average lifespan of a personal computer is only two to five years. We can expect a tidal wave of computers ready for disposal shortly, and this number will only increase. And as if that isn't challenge enough, there are already several hundred million computers out-of-service, sitting in attics and basements and garages, awaiting disposal.
E-mail Print r 18   · Read More · 145 Comment(s)
Thread beginning with comment 430205
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Lots of weasel words and flamebaiting
by ronaldst on Tue 15th Jun 2010 22:55 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

"Member organizations have done a world of good in reuse and recycling. At the same time, the programs help Microsoft fulfill the "Prime Directive" of every monopoly -- maintain monopoly status in all market segments."

*cough* this isn't slashdot *cough*

I love how the article puts the upfront pricing of Windows yet curiously omits the time expenses of Linux.

If author wants to be taken seriously, don't take sides.

Reply Score: 9

Kalessin Member since:
2007-01-18

Well, this situation is a bit different from putting together or buying a new computer. The whole point is that you can get some more life out of older computers using Linux and that there are people out there who could readily use such older computers even if you can't or don't want to. If you stick to Windows, that doesn't work anywhere near as well.

The author could have done it without being so anti-MS, I suppose, but arguably, the nature of the subject is somewhat anti-MS to begin with.

Reply Parent Score: 2

DigitalAxis Member since:
2005-08-28

There are also time expenses involved in installing Windows, even if you make a custom image with service packs added; the common programs you want to run...

Yes, I can believe Linux will take more time to get working properly, particularly if you have to do obscure console commands to get hardware working properly, or it has a really troublesome setup; just don't try to tell me Windows will require no time whatsoever.

Reply Parent Score: 6

Shane Member since:
2005-07-06

On old hardware, I generally find it faster to install Linux than to install Windows. A Linux distro would very likely support the hardware out of the box, while I'd have to hunt down drivers for Windows.

Just recently I had to redo a completely hosed Windows installation on my girlfriend's old (circa 2004) laptop. But first I had to recover some files from the hard drive. Popped in a CD with a recent release of Ubuntu, and what do you know. All the hardware works out of the box. Sound, wireless, the works. I recovered the files, then proceeded to install XP. Once done, I popped in the CD containing the Windows drivers. Had to manually install ten or eleven different drivers, rebooting after each one. But at least I had the CD and didn't have to go hunting for drivers over the net.

While the above is just one example, it has been typical of my experience in these situations.

Reply Parent Score: 5

kbloodstone Member since:
2009-06-03

I love how the article puts the upfront pricing of Windows yet curiously omits the time expenses of Linux.


Sorry, but no.
It all comes down to your level of experience. I am a SysAdmin, with plenty of experience with both, and you could say much more on Windows, and I can tell you this:

I can get a full working computer with Ubuntu, all set up the way I like it, with all the applications that I need, MUCH MUCH faster than with Windows XP.

And that's without cloning the hard drive, which works perfectly 99% of the time with Linux/Ubuntu with different hardware, but works 0% of the time with Windows XP with different hardware.

In other words, I have never experienced the frequently heard myth: "What you save in money with Linux, you pay in time." In fact, it's the other way around, I save time AND money with Linux.

And freedom, of course, can't forget the freedom... I like being able to give Ubuntu CDs to my friends, the way it's meant to be: you share good things with your friends.

2 * 1/100 of your currency here.

Reply Parent Score: 10

nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


In other words, I have never experienced the frequently heard myth: "What you save in money with Linux, you pay in time." In fact, it's the other way around, I save time AND money with Linux.


Because when something goes wrong in Linux it can take a lot longer to fix.

Never had XP require me to track down drivers and then compile them for a common wireless card.

Never had XP break working hardware with a system update.

Until a Linux distro can be relied upon to update the system without breaking applications or hardware it isn't ready for the typical consumer.

I have said before that crunchbang is a great distro for old computers but I really think it is a bad idea to put Linux on charity computers if there is an XP key available.

Reply Parent Score: 2

r_a_trip Member since:
2005-07-06

In other words, I have never experienced the frequently heard myth: "What you save in money with Linux, you pay in time." In fact, it's the other way around, I save time AND money with Linux.

I can second that. Just yesterday I had to do a Windows 2000 installation. Getting Windows installed itself was a relative breeze, but installing the drivers and some basic applications afterwards was extremely time consuming.

Finding the drivers, getting them from the net, putting them on a thumb-drive (2000 didn't have the right ethernet driver OOTB), copying them over and then install, reboot, install, reboot, install, reboot. Then trying to install some apps only to find you need a newer Internet Explorer and a newer MSI installer first. Quite frustrating.

With Linux I can just pop in the Live-CD, klik install, answer a few questions and then I can rest assured a basic, preconfigured and usable desktop is copied to the harddrive. During the installation I can just go about using the Live Desktop to get some stuff done. There might be some post install handholding necessary with some hardware, but that is mostly a quick afair.

Plus I can install a large batch of applications in one simple command and be certain they will be fetched, installed and made ready to use from the menu, without any further interaction from me. Huge timesaver.

To all the people who think: "Linux is free if your time is worthless". All the benefits of Linux will only materialize if you are familiar with the system. If you never take the time to get to know the system (or even resist it), then everything will be alien and time consuming. So yes, the learning curve is an upfront investment in time, but don't add that time to the time it takes to work a Linux system in day to day use. You never add learning time to the regular time you need to administer Windows, yet you did make that upfront investment when you started using Windows.

Reply Parent Score: 2

lemur2 Member since:
2007-02-17

"Member organizations have done a world of good in reuse and recycling. At the same time, the programs help Microsoft fulfill the "Prime Directive" of every monopoly -- maintain monopoly status in all market segments." *cough* this isn't slashdot *cough* I love how the article puts the upfront pricing of Windows yet curiously omits the time expenses of Linux. If author wants to be taken seriously, don't take sides.


What time expense of Linux?

Seriously, what time expense?

Recently, I had occasion to restore Windows 7 on a Toshiba Laptop that had been dropped and trashed the hard disk. New hard disk required, and restore Windows 7 from the three recovery DVDs. Yes, three.

To get this machine up and running, with a set of all drivers and desktop applications, took four days of my spare time. Four days.

I also had occasion to install Kubuntu 10.4 on a netbook, just two weeks later. I installed it from a single LiveCD (yes, one CD). Total time to set up the equivalent functionality? Thirty minutes. Printer, scanner and wireless setup included.

Seriously, what time expense of Linux? Where do you get this rubbish from, really?

Edited 2010-06-16 03:53 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 8

soulrebel123 Member since:
2009-05-13

Or we could cut the guy some slack. He is doing charity after all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

testman Member since:
2007-10-15

Agreed. The rhetoric seems childish (or at least one-sided), but no more than say PETA's when you understand the motivations.

They aim to do something good.

Reply Parent Score: 3