Re: [BLUG] Gnumeric fun: Dual-core/Quad-core comparison

That's pretty neat. The main (real) reason our teachers don't want to
give up the MS Office is that OOo Calc doesn't do more than multi-line
graphs. It looks like Gnumeric wins soundly on that account.
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

[BLUG] Gnumeric fun: Dual-core/Quad-core comparison

I made this spreadsheet today with Gnumeric because I noticed that the
price of quad core Clovertown processors has dropped below the price of
dual core Woodcrest processors at 1.86GHz and 2.33GHz, which is crazy,
but oh well. I wanted to analyze the current prices and got a little
carried away with my analysis.

Just wanted to show that Gnumeric can make decent spreadsheets.
Sorry about the color scheme.

--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/

[BLUG] Re: [ubuntu-us-in] Gutsy Release Party

On 10/14/07, Michael Schultheiss <schultmc@cinlug.org> wrote:
> FYI, We're having the release party at the Claddagh Irish Pub at 3835
> East 96th Street in Indianapolis (there are 3 Claddagh's in Metro Indy).

Oops!

Thanks for catching my mistake, Michael.

I should have been more careful.

Simón

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

[BLUG] Re: [ubuntu-us-in] Gutsy Release Party

Simón Ruiz wrote:
> I just wanted to let you all know that the Ubuntu Indiana Local
> Community Team will be getting together this coming Saturday, 20th of
> October at Claddagh Irish Pub in Indianapolis at 7:10pm to celebrate
> the release of Ubunty 7.10, the Gutsy Gibbon.

FYI, We're having the release party at the Claddagh Irish Pub at 3835
East 96th Street in Indianapolis (there are 3 Claddagh's in Metro Indy).
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

[BLUG] Gutsy Release Party

Hello!

This is intended for those of you on other lists who don't already
know, but I'm copying the LoCo list as well.

I just wanted to let you all know that the Ubuntu Indiana Local
Community Team will be getting together this coming Saturday, 20th of
October at Claddagh Irish Pub in Indianapolis at 7:10pm to celebrate
the release of Ubunty 7.10, the Gutsy Gibbon.

For those that haven't played with it, the Gutsy Gibbon is a big
monkey jump forward on several fronts including Compiz Fusion by
default where possible, automatic printer setup, and setting up
Broadcom wireless with the simple checking of a box.

It's a leap ahead with a courageous stance on features that had been
judged too gutsy before now. They're solid enough to make it to prime
time now, and they've got the chance to hardy up in time for the
upcoming Long Term Release, Ubuntu 8.04, the Hardy Heron.

You are all invited to join us at Claddagh in Indy to celebrate!

Simón

P.S. As a blatant bribe, I'll be passing out some shiny, metal
"Powered by Ubuntu" stickers—courtesy of the Ohio Local Community
Team—to everybody who attends. They're real pretty and shiny, would
make a good replacement for that shiny, metal sticker advertising a
legacy OS that came on your box without your asking for it. Bring an
Ubuntu powered laptop (Gutsy powered or not) and get it branded on the
spot, before I divvy out the stickers.

P.P.S. And I heard a rumor (completely uncorroborated, as I haven't
yet discussed with involved parties about this) about some black open
source related T-shirts from the Ohio LinuxFest that might show up and
get distributed freely at the party......

P.P.P.S. LoCo team members that are in other Linux-related groups,
you're encouraged to publicize our Gutsy Release Party to them, and
forward on my bribe. The more the merrier!

_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

Mark Krenz wrote:
> I'm sorry to be a fact Nazi in this, but I think that if we're talking
> about saving the world from predicted environmental disaster based on
> scientific research, then we should use more accurate statistics.

I'm speaking at a higher level than specifics. The fact is we're not
going to get to the exact figures, and even if we could find perfectly
precise figures, I can't see them modifying my point, unless they turn
out to actually contradict me. They would only put a more concrete
figure on the magnitude of the benefits of developing more efficient
computing practices.

Unless it turns out that computers are in fact feeding power into the
electrical grid, there's really no way to argue against coming up with
strategies to deliver computing with less power.

> I found the "Energy efficiency" section of this article interesting:
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_power_supply
>
> And this:
>
>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency
>
> Computers are much more efficient than I expected. 93% efficiency is
> pretty impressive. So why are we making such a big deal about it? It
> seems that as long as we use our computers for useful things while they
> are on (like writing this email), its not really all that wasteful.

a) 93%-efficient power supplies are available, but they are generally
70-75% at peak according to your article, though this figure only
applies at 50-75% load.

Anything less than or more than that drops this figure, more significant
on the low-load side than the high-load side.

So an idling computer is in fact the least efficient from the
mathematically perspective as well as the fact that it's basically a
power-sucking paperweight.

b) However, let's pretend computers are 100% power efficient.

In this magical world where the power supply is basically just
superconducting power from the grid into the box, it's still more
efficient to write your e-mail on a box that draws less than 10W than
one that must draw 60W if it's staring at the wall (though honestly, I'd
be surprised if an idle computer only drew 60W...I'll have to borrow a
kill-a-watt from work to measure this stuff). You're spending less
energy to get the exact same result.

What is your return on investment for that extra wattage? Wobbly
windows? ;-)

> So in this way, servers are generally not wasting much energy. Its
> obvious that people understand this though because the desktop is where
> all the power saving technologies are like turning off the monitor, hard
> drive sleep, etc.

Servers are the most efficient part of our computer use habits,
depending on how you structure it. This is why my ideal includes big
servers back-ends with the small workstations front-ends.

> Ok, I've rambled on long enough. Scott Blaydes could tell you about
> his dream of having a data center that is solar powered though. :-)

It's definitely doable, and economically advantageous in the long term.

He'll need to figure out how to make enough money with it to pay for the
solar panels in the short-middle term.

He'll also need to carefully calculate the "bang for his buck" of each
power-using component in his data center, as I've been talking about.
He'll want to make sure that every Watt he's spending (and thus every
square inch of expensive solar paneling he needs to have up) is bringing
him more money than it's costing him.

His dream highlights my very points.

I started thinking about this stuff as I considered the possibility of
building a completely power-independent home (and solar power seems the
way to go). I'm a total computer geek, and with the number of computers
I have now, they're a major chunk of my energy needs.

*yawn*

I'm going to bed, ya'll, have a great night!

Simón

P.S. Incidentally, I don't intend to say our computers today need to no
longer be used, throwing them away would have equally if not more
disturbing ecological consequences. I'm simply saying tomorrows
computers can be compacts, motorcycles, bicyles, with the same power as
today's SUVs.
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug

Re: [BLUG] NOV meeting topic

On Fri, Oct 12, 2007 at 04:36:11AM GMT, David Ernst [david.ernst@davidernst.net] said the following:
>
> http://www.industcards.com/ppworld.htm

Actually, that's a pretty cool site.

I'm sorry to be a fact Nazi in this, but I think that if we're talking
about saving the world from predicted environmental disaster based on
scientific research, then we should use more accurate statistics.

> Suppose we wanted to double the number of automobiles in the world.
> We'd likely be looking at something like an 80% increase in power
> consumption. That's a rough estimate based on zero research, but
> whatever the correct number is, it's going to be way way way over 1%.
> And a car takes WAY more energy when it's in use!

The difference is that cars are based on converting something that has
energy in it (Petroleum). Not using energy from a power plant. Never
thought of it this way before, but cars are like mini power plants.

> Says that a ford escort uses 110 horsepower = 82,026 watts. So,
> driving a Ford Escort (my old one used to get about 33 mpg (need I
> point out that the escort is not among the highest performance
> vehicles ever designed?)) for ONE MINUTE is roughly the same power
> consumption of leaving a desktop computer idle (at 60 watts) for ONE
> DAY. The twelve hours of driving I'm planning on this weekend to
> visit my parents will the amount of energy of two years of leaving my
> desktop turned on 24/7. And cars are mobile things with difficult
> emissions control problems. The computers' new power plants could be
> anything from wind farms to fuel cells.

This is why I responded to your email. I realize that obviously the
power output of a car that is turned on is not 0 watts when its in park
or even when you are coasting. Obviously, its consuming fuel. But its
also obviously not producing 82000 watts all the time when its running.
However, it wouldn't be a direct relationship between the rpms of the
engine and the watts it produces. So I'm not sure you could say
something like when you run the engine at 1/4 of full throttle that it
would produce only 82000 watts. I agree with your comparison though,
cars do use a lot more power than computers.

Actually, I think the most effective way to conserve power in regards
to your home computer is to keep them away from your thermostat.
Computers generate quite a bit of heat these days. We have two story
house and the office used to be upstairs with three computers there at
least one was on most of the time. The thermostat was also on that
floor. When I moved the computers downstairs this year and the
temperature in that room dropped 5 degrees F. The extra heat upstairs
in the summer was causing the thermostat to continue to drive the AC and
make the downstairs colder than it should have been. Now with the
computers downstairs, the temperature is more consistent in the house
and probably it helps more in the winter since the heat will rise
through the house a bit. There should be some scientific study to back
this up.

I found the "Energy efficiency" section of this article interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_power_supply

And this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_efficiency

Computers are much more efficient than I expected. 93% efficiency is
pretty impressive. So why are we making such a big deal about it? It
seems that as long as we use our computers for useful things while they
are on (like writing this email), its not really all that wasteful.

So in this way, servers are generally not wasting much energy. Its
obvious that people understand this though because the desktop is where
all the power saving technologies are like turning off the monitor, hard
drive sleep, etc.

Ok, I've rambled on long enough. Scott Blaydes could tell you about
his dream of having a data center that is solar powered though. :-)

--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug