Oh no, not another 'green' report. Yep. But this time it's the result of teamwork between you (well, the 1474 of you who responded to our survey), The Register and FreeForm Dynamics. Green Computing: the role of IT in the push towards environmental sustainability has a good rummage round inside organisations to find out what's …
To quote Simon
"A REAL computer has ONE speed and the only powersaving it permits is when you pull the power leads out of the back!" I blurt. "In fact, a REAL computer would have a hole in the front to push trees into and an exhaust pipe out the back for the black smoke to come out of."
Ok, I've downloaded it, but
What the devil is Figure 7 supposed to show?
"Do you have initiatives in place to reduce power consumption in relation to IT?"
yes/No, but we're looking into it/No, not on the agenda, I can understand, but what the deuce are the three bands across the graph (Regulatory Pressure i.e. legistlation/Cost Savings/Public Relations) got to do with anything?
And is there a text version available instead of a pdf? I'd prefer to search it for the words "proactive" and "moving forward" before I decide whether to waste my time on the rest of it.
Two fingers to Tebbutt
Has anyone read this report? Is this really The Register I'm reading? Spare me the sanctimonious, guilt-ridden, New Age preaching:
"... What’s needed is a return to a more sustainable way of life"
Maybe we can decided for ourselves "what's needed".
"... Some would say that we’re beyond the point of no return."
Some like ... who? Greenpeace?
"...It’s already too late, we’re hooked on a consumer lifestyle and globalisation has ensured its future spread to the massive populations of developing countries...."
How awful: people living longer, having healthier children and more say over their lives. David Tebbutt just wants people to stay poor, if they're not poor already.
"... If these people are childless or don’t care about their grandchildren, then who’s to say they’re wrong? They will continue to plunder and to hell with the consequences."
I see: anyone who disagrees with Tebbutt must be selfish. Perhaps we disagree because the benefits outweight the costs, and we're making a rational decision? Tebbutt cannot comprehend that.
"... But they’re probably a tiny minority. The rest of us can see the sense of doing what we can to slow, possibly halt, maybe even reverse our negative impact on our world."
No, it's just a tiny minority of old hippies like David Tebbutt who want to impose their views on the rest of us.
The report shows very clearly that the respondents aren't interested Tebbutt's Green Propaganda.
Just give us the research without the Greenie preaching, El Reg.
What about thin computing?
Why nothing on thin clients? There are many clients for each server so there is where you find big savings on power reduction while keeping full-speed computing. 80% of tasks can run thin. Why does IT continue to accept M$'s FUD that thin is dumb? This is not the old days with serial links and 10baseT. We have huge RAM, faster storage on servers and gigabit/s. I have done side by side tests and users prefer thin, given the choice, because it is faster in many cases, especially with GNU/Linux and shared memory. We do not need M$ in IT. It holds us back from important innovation like thin clients.
The green issue is one that I think will start to dominate the engineering industry for years to come. I work for a young company who are trying to specialise in this area. It seems that from purely a hardware standpoint much energy could be saved in clever rearchitecting of existing solutions. I specialise in Telecomms where the heavy power of multi processor solutions will soon be removed by lower power devices and architectures.
I'd be really interested in investigating any ideas that contributors may have to help engineers like myself build a safer and greener environment for everyone.
Please respond and I'll be glad to add my comments to this debate
In defence of the old hippy from one of his colleagues
Further to Paul M's comments, it might be worth noting that we got some stick from a number of readers on the initial survey for "assuming" that the green thing had any validity at all. We therefore ran a follow up poll inviting responses from readers (particularly sceptics) to tell is what they really thought about the legitimacy of the green discussion - ie whether it is justified or simply a load of contrived garbage cooked up by do-gooders, politicians, IT vendors and the like.
The results of this follow up poll told us in no uncertain terms that the majority of Reg readers are pretty well aligned with the Tebbut view of the world. I realise that some disageee, but the reality is that that the report is in keeping with general reader sentiment.
While it might come as bit of a shock, the thousands of reponses we received suggest that most readers of El Reg do appear have a heart :-)
In defiance of the old hippy
1930s The Yellow Peril
1940s-1970s The Red Menace
1970s New Ice Age
1980s Nuclear Winter
1990s Y2K (ok, there might have been some point to that, but a lot of exaggeration too)
2000's Bird Flu, SARS, Terrorism, Global Climate Change (because we can't agree if it's going to warm up or cool down)
Roll on 2010 so I can find out what the next decade's worry-warts are going to have us all killed in our beds by.
To Mr Vile, and whoever commissioned this poll at The Register:
Your defence of this statistical garbage is even more troubling than Tebbutt's original article. May I suggest you learn something about self-selection bias before wasting our time with further polls?
Surveys which fail to account for self-selection bias are meaningless. Would you publish a poll on attitudes to the Police, without first finding out how many respondents are in the Police force?
Re: Self selection bias
Dr Stephen Jones
I presume you haven't read the report. In it we cover the dangers of self selection and why this does not invalidate what we learnt.