As I alluded in a post last week, a number of EU governments are intent on making a switch from Windows to Linux operating systems. Part of the reason for this is the ostensibly cheaper cost of using open source software as opposed to proprietary systems.

According to reports out of the UK, “Shadow chancellor George Osbourne has estimated that the UK government could save in excess of ꍠ0 million a year if more open source software was deployed across various departments.” And of course costs are likely to be lower when regulators take an active hand in lowering the ongoing fees associated with open patibility. Such actions hide the true costs of open source operating systems, giving them an artificial cushion.

But one other interesting factor in the claim that Linux is cheaper to run than es from the environmental considerations involved. This article (HT: Slashdot) makes the case that Linux rigs are “greener than those running Windows” because “open source software has lower hardware requirements and needs less frequent hardware refreshes.”

Interestingly enough, that’s the same claim made by Apple in a recent Mac v. PC ad:

But then again, the costs associated with hardware upgrades aren’t the only relevant environmental factors to consider. Think about the ways in panies have or have not worked to create responsible disposal methods for outdated or obsolete equipment. This latter consideration, in fact, is one of the reasons why Greenpeace has said that Apple “has the worst environmental policies among major panies.”

PC manufacturers like Dell, on the other hand, have been praised for having “one of the best recycling programs in the industry.”

Judgments about the cost-effectiveness and environmental costs associated with the latest generation puter hardware and software need to go beyond short-term examinations of the one-time costs of upgrades, or even the long-term hardware needs. The ‘greenness’ puting can’t be measured by just one standard.