Comment by bullen
20 days ago
X86 uses more electricity than ARM/Risc-V.
So I do not want people to only move to linux (on their X86) but also move to ARM/Risc-V.
Directly from Windows on X86 to Linux on ARM/Risc-V in one go.
Two flies with one hit.
That said all X86 should become linux servers = this is only valid for the client.
Surely the e-waste from discarding an x86 Windows computer you could have put Linux on out-weighs the power benefit of Arm/RISC-V. Also seems like you would discourage people who cannot afford new hardware from moving from a closed system to an open one; most PCs and laptops are still x86 except for the newest models.
No, because it uses 10x the energy. Electricity is not an energy source.
As I said the X86 would use linux but as a server, not a client.
A server has to handle thousands of clients and then it's ok to have the extra power.
I don't understand why you think the last sentence, it makes no sense:
I am encouraging people to get low price, low power, open hardware and software for everyday use before the KWh goes to $1 which is HAS to do, hopefully not too soon.
Do you have a source for x86 taking x10 the energy? I generally hear that Arm is something like 30-40% more power efficent which lines up with my experience that Arm laptops don't have 10x more battery life than x86 ones.
In any case, my point in the last sentence is not that we shouldn't encourage people to use more power efficent devices. My point is that encouraging people to use open software and encouraging people to use power efficent devices are, to me, two seperate and unrelated goals. It seems that, by not offering x86 Linux you sacrifice one goal over the other which doesnt seem needed.
I suppose that the part of your position which I don't understand, and I am still interested to hear more about, is: if you are this concerned about openness and power efficiency, why even offer x86 Windows which is objectively worse by your metrics than x86 Linux.
1 reply →