Recycled computers

[Ben Scott]

On 5/29/06, Ted Roche <tedroche at tedroche.com> wrote:
> However, there's a lot of resistance to these
> contributions: concern over support, toxic waste disposal, security,
> etc.

  It's a complicated situation.  The Windoze world has more problems
with recycling hardware than Linux, but even if you don't have the
Windoze-only worries, you're not home free.

  One big thing is the cost of a new PC.  You can get a new PC, with
decent specs, running Windoze, for well under $500 these days --
without buying in bulk or getting any donations.  Even with
all-volunteer labor, that price is attractive.  Why not put your
limited volunteer pool to work with new hardware rather than fussing
around with old stuff?

  (Aside: I confess I'm a little confused at the plummeting cost of
PCs.  I don't understand how they can be that cheap, even with slave
labor and no support.  (I am aware that my lack of understanding
rather more likely indicates a problem with my understanding, not with
reality, but I'm still curious.))

  The cost of the hardware is generally the smallest component.
Software licenses eat up much more -- here Linux can win big.  Even if
you have to buy a Windows license with the PC, it can still be cheaper
to eat that as a loss, if you don't have to buy the tons of payware to
go with it.

  (Aside: Maybe Microsoft will stay in business forever, selling
Windows licenses that nobody uses, but nobody bothers resisting
anymore.)

  Support also costs more than hardware.  Hardware is going to fail,
it is only a question of when.  Many times, it isn't worth the cost of
running your own repair operations (maintaining inventory, staff,
logistics, etc.).  So a PC without support becomes a liability that
needs to be replaced.

  (Aside: Perhaps there is a potential business in being the field
service organization for PCs which don't have an OEM support contract
anymore.)

  The risk of being stuck with a large pile of non-working PCs which
have to be disposed of properly is also not to be ignored.

  So while I think the idea of reusing old PCs as Linux boxes has
merit, it is not as easy as one might expect at first.

  One thing I think has substantial merit is LTSP (Linux Terminal
Server Project).  By using old PCs as little more than dumb terminals,
you can limit your support cost on the clients.  If it breaks, you
throw it out and swap in a spare from the junk pile.  Network and
server costs are still significant, but you tend to get better
economies of scale and easier management of costs.  I've tried LTSP
myself, and it was very easy to set up and equally impressive in use.

> Similarly, 17" and 20" CRTs are bulky and heavy.

  Anecdote: When looking for display hardware for CAD users at work
recently, I found CRTs larger than 19 inches were practically
impossible to find in the online catalogs of our suppliers.  Most
don't even carry them anymore.  It makes sense, but it is a sign of
the times.

> Many folks want machines that will run the latest thing. That's
> usually Windows ...

  Or Red Hat Linux or OpenOffice.org or even Firefox.  On the machine
I'm logged into right now, Firefox has a Resident Set Size of around
85 megabytes.  That's more RAM then many new PCs had five years ago.

  Running the "latest and greatest" in the FOSS world often needs
almost as many computrons as Windoze does.  Sure, there are many
lightweight options, but you often sacrifice some of the "features"
that we point to when we say "Linux is just like Windows".  (Perhaps
that's a good thing.)

> At Hosstraders earlier this month, the sponsors had a trailer where
> they accepted discards for a group that made money salvaging the
> donations. Does anyone recall who that was?

  No idea, but I've been told that, in the past, they had a scrap
dealer collecting stuff.  Such dealers usually see this stuff as
precious metals and such to be extracted, not components to be reused.

-- Ben