Alex Deucher wrote on 2014-09-25 22:55 (UCT-0400): > On Thu, Sep 25, 2014 at 12:01 PM, Felix Miata wrote: ... >> The sis and mga drivers are yet more cases of pushing hardware toward >> landfills and recyclers before their suitability to task naturally expires. >> Fedora seems to be the leader in this anti-eco-friendly realm.
> Most developers have limited numbers of round tuits as well. I'm sure that's true. A lot surely depends on their motivation to do whatever it is they do. Keeping old hardware going isn't likely to improve income or prestige. Something else has to be the motivation, and that motivation to be able to sustain needs arbitrary obstacles to that end avoided. > This older hardware still works perfectly fine with older versions of > distros or distros focused on older hardware. People need internet access that's secure, regardless of the age of their hardware. They don't upgrade an OS because they want to, but because they need to keep safe, and need access to web tools new enough not to cause access denial. Older versions thus become inappropriate. People who use some particular spin or distro don't appreciate being forced to choose between changing to something unfamiliar, or familiarity coupled with newfound insecurity, particularly if they know the insecurity trigger is nothing but a compilation flag (e.g. sse2 for qt5, IIRC). > In many cases the older > hardware can't handle the requirements of the newer distros. 3D? More bling? A bazillion background daemons some people might use? Often the "requirements" are no more than a compilation switch that's an arbitary choice, not to deny use to hardware on account of its age, which it does do, but to add nominally more speed to help compensate for code and feature bloat. Not everybody cares to have everything happen instantly, either at all, or to spend any money to get more. DEs like Mate, TDE, IceWM and XFCE exist why? So excessive requirements aren't insurmountable or unnecessary obstacles. > Additionally, older hardware gets tested less and less on newer > distros so there is less and less chance of everything just working > smoothly. Hence reasons I do what I do. I have the hardware to do it, so I test with it, and report problems found. > Even if you test it, there's a good chance developers won't > have enough round tuits to actually fix the problem if you encounter > one. Unfortunate, but true. Of course for some, those round tuits are allocated and/or provided by commercial interests that don't profit from old machines keeping on keeping on. Lack by others need not be impediments to those with more noble motivation and availability. > And speaking of anti-eco-friendly, a lot of older hardware uses > more power than newer hardware How much is "a lot"? How does one tell whether any particular proposed replacement in fact uses more or less than that which is in use? Marketing specs are typically less than entirely trustworthy, designed to produce sales, not compare to out-the-door products. Full size desktops from 9 or more years ago typically got by just fine on 200w or 250w power supplies, significantly less than typically recommended for newer. Newer gfxcards often require *2* fans blowing on their coolers, not just one, or the none from yesteryear's machines I test on. That means heat generation, and thus power consumption, from the video component of newer systems has gone up, making buildings' A/C systems work harder whether there are eco-friendly labels on the machines or not. I'm aware of no hard and fast rules to make any determination whether any particular replacement would really be better. Much power, maybe in many cases most, consumed by older computers in actual use went into CRTs putting heat into the environment. That translates into consumption from newer, using less power hungry panel displays, skewed when compared to older, which often today are being used with newer, less expensive, space saving displays. Energy Star has been around long enough that very little not featuring it remains in use. > so it has it's own anti-eco-friendly > costs. You should be recycling anyway ;) Where did I write anything that says I'm not? You expect people to purchase newer just so that they can recycle working older? The bulk of machines I've acquired, including those I kept to test on, were gratis acquisitions, recycling on its own level. Without more such, I'd have to invest money above my past pattern. For what, just to give other recyclers something to do? The motherboard that spawned this thread is actually my latest acquistion, one of my 5 newest counting the two that run here 24/7. Refurbing old machines with new operating systems and giving them new homes *is* recycling, recycling which arbitrary cutoff of driver support for would put a stop to. -- "The wise are known for their understanding, and pleasant words are persuasive." Proverbs 16:21 (New Living Translation) Team OS/2 ** Reg. Linux User #211409 ** a11y rocks! Felix Miata *** http://fm.no-ip.com/ _______________________________________________ [email protected]: X.Org development Archives: http://lists.x.org/archives/xorg-devel Info: http://lists.x.org/mailman/listinfo/xorg-devel
