Computing » BleachBit Leaves Your File System Sparkling and Grime-Free

Different Linux distros build in favorite cleaning products. For instance, Ubuntu has Computer Janitor. CentOS, Fedora and Red Hat Linux use Yum Clean to remove cached package data. But BleachBit goes beyond such distro-specific cleaning services to accomplish a more complete spit-and-polish session to Linux's file structure in any distro.

One of the most essential computer maintenance tasks is pruning outdated and orphaned files from the deep, dark dungeons within the Linux filing system. These disconnected scraps and bits are endemic to the file structure in any operating system, Linux included.

Weeding the Linux software garden is not something that typical users do often enough. However, letting the clutter of different temporary or cache folders linger will sooner or later slow down the system and waste valuable disk space. Taking out the digital trash fermenting in your Linux file system can be challenge-free, though, if you use the right cleaner package. One app that I have grown to love for its ease-of-use and thoroughness is BleachBit.

BleachBit

Unlike less rigorous cleaner apps, BleachBit removes files that could pose security risks. This removes the need for you to employ yet another product to finish cleaning out the clutter collection. For instance, it removes browsing histories and cookies planted to keep tabs on your website activities. It also shreds files to hide their contents. This helps to prevent others from recovering your deleted data.

Critical Missions

One key function in BleachBit raises my comfort level for computer security considerably. It does an outstanding job of wiping clean more than 90 applications. It cleans out their refuse but leaves their functionality intact.

For example, BleachBit takes the cleaning cloth to my often-used and favorite Linux staples. These programs include my list of installed Web brosers -- Firefox, Seamonkey, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) Chrome and Opera. In fact, I have yet to find an app I regularly use that is not treated by one of BleachBit's installed cleaners. This includes Adobe (Nasdaq: ADBE) Flash, Audacious, Bash, Gedit, GIMP, Nautilus, Rythmbox and Skype.

BleachBit's usefulness does not end with its superior file deleting capabilities. It also wipes free disk space, thus hiding traces of files deleted by other applications. I also like being able to use its command line interface (CLI) to script automated cleaning sessions.

Bounteous Benefits

BleachBit can be invaluable in less obvious ways. For example, it is a virtual time and space saver if you run an encryption application for added file security. It can better prepare the file system for disk image compression to do ghosted backups or to maintain virtual machines. This general cleaning process frees up disk space. It also reduces the size and time needed for backups by eliminating unnecessary files.

Different Linux distros build in favorite cleaning products. For instance, Ubuntu has Computer Janitor. CentOS, Fedora and Red Hat (NYSE: RHT) Linux use Yum Clean to remove cached package data. Debian-based Linux systems such as Ubuntu, Kubuntu, Xubuntu and Linux Mint can use Clean APT to tidy up.

BleachBit goes beyond such distro-specific cleaning services to accomplish a more complete spit-and-polish session to Linux's file structure in any distro. I've been very pleased with its doggedness in finding widely-scatted junk such as Thumbs.db and .DS_Store files. It also excels in finding and removing broken shortcuts and deleting volumes of Linux localizations -- you know, all of those bulky language files you that are not your native language.

Clean and Simple

BleachBit does such a good job that I would be willing to tolerate a less-than-adequate interface. But that is not a trade-off I need to make, fortunately. BleachBit's look and feel is just as clean as the job it does cleaning out your computer's hard drive.

The File menu gets to the point quickly. Just select these options: Shred Files, Shred Folders or Wipe Free Space. Each of these options opens a file manager style picker window. Select the items you want cleaned.

A final choice in the File menu is Shred Settings and Quit. This last choice lets you reset your cleaning options. It closes the application. The next time you run BleachBit, the Preferences panel opens. Otherwise, you can always access the preferences panel from the Edit menu. You cannot miss it. Nothing else clutters the Edit menu.

The Set Up

There's nothing about BleachBit to scare away hesitant users. Its Graphical User Interface (GUI) is designed for simplicity, so newbies and Linux pros alike have a level playing field. All guesswork and Linux jargon are already wiped from the app.

From the General Tab, you can choose to hide irrelevant cleaners or overwrite files to hide their contents and start the app when the computer boots. Click the Drives Tab to Add/Remove the folders from each selected drive on the computer for which you want to overwrite free space. The Languages Tab lists all of the installed language support files. Check the ones that you do NOT want removed.

The Whitelist is a superb safety-net feature. Use it to add/remove files and folders that you do not want deleted or modified by BleachBit.

The Cleanup

Other than making a few choices in the the Preferences panel, the only other configuration BleachBit needs is a check list of cleaners to engage. This is another area in which BleachBit excels.

Highlight each item in the left column. A short, simple summary of what that cleaner does displays in the right column of the BleachBit app window. If the function will take a long time to complete, a warning box will pop open to tell you. The same thing happens with any other advisories connected to that function that might have other linked options.

These warnings are key to a safe system clean-out. Do not ignore the warning pop-ups. Some of the warnings alert you to potentially damaging results. So make sure before you proceed. A safer approach is to cancel that particular action and do some checking. You can always select that removal option in a later session.

When you are finished selected files and folders, you can click the Preview button below the menu row at the top of the app window. This reviews your choices and the actions you specified. Or, when you are ready to throw out the garbage bits, click on the Delete button next to Preview.

That's all there is to it. Did I say BleachBit was quick and simple?

Bottom Line

BleachBit is a powerful file-cleaning detergent. It works well with relative ease. But using it carelessly can have worse results than tossing bleach into a washing machine filled with colorful clothes. It comes with no Undo command.

It might be a bit too easy at times to remove too much. Almost no documentation is included. Before you attempt to use it, be sure to access the online how-to videos and documents. You can access these through the Help menu.

I use BleachBit on all of my desktop and laptop computers. I have yet to have a problem with cleaning out too much. But to be sure, I have system-level backup files available for each computer. I also have restore images for each computer stored on an external hard drive.

Computing » Which Linux Distro Leads the Pack?

"Debian is No. 1? Why am I not surprised," said Roberto Lim, a lawyer and blogger on Mobile Raptor. "Sometimes I really feel like the Linux community, which used to be about innovation and building the best next thing, has lost touch with society and are in danger of becoming irrelevant." The real No. 1 distro is Ubuntu, Lim asserted: "It is the only one with a shot at becoming more than a niche in a niche market."

Between Googlerola, the tempestuous software patent storm, HP's (NYSE: HPQ) shenanigans and the one-two punch delivered by CmdrTaco and Steve Jobs, we've surely displayed all the stamina any group of completely overwhelmed souls could reasonably be expected to have.

Time now for a little fun.

And how do Linux bloggers have fun? That's right, by engaging in a little high-spirited debate -- not of some weighty, industry-changing subject this time, though, but of a matter very close to all of our hearts. It's time, in other words, to ask the question once again: Which distro is best?

'The Best Linux Distro of 2011!'

It is with deepest gratitude to the ever-awesome geeks over at TuxRadar that Linux Girl calls your attention, dear readers, to a wonderfully thorough side-by-side comparison they recently performed on six of today's most popular Linux distributions: Fedora, Mint, Arch, Ubuntu, Debian and OpenSUSE.

"There are a lot of things to weigh up, and a lot of distros to plop on the scales, so if you wanted to compare them yourself, you would have to spend at least two weeks of little sleep and mind-poundingly painful headaches to draw up some kind of summary of how they measure up," the TuxRadar team wrote. "But don't bother, because here's one we prepared earlier. With diagrams and charts."

Installation, hardware support, desktop, customization, community, performance, package management and security were all among the features considered and compared in the six Linux distros. The results are summed up in a post from last month entitled, "The best Linux distro of 2011!"

Debian Is Crowned

Think it's all just another glorified ad for Ubuntu? Think again, because Ubuntu didn't win the No. 1 spot overall -- Debian did.

The result? More than 100 comments from Linux fans eager to agree with or dispute some or all of TuxRadar's results.

Linux Girl couldn't resist collecting her own small sampling of opinions.

'The Universal Operating System'

"Best distro? Of course, it's Debian GNU/Linux, the universal operating system," opined blogger and educator Robert Pogson.

"I stayed away from it for years because people told me it was 'hard' to install," Pogson recounted. "Last year, I gave all my high school students a quick demonstration, and they were all able to install Debian GNU/Linux and brought new life to the old PCs of the school. They even replaced XP on some hot, brand-new units. They loved it."

Besides its ease of installation and use, "Debian GNU/Linux has a great package manager with powerful tools to help find software in the huge repository and to install it easily to one or many PCs," Pogson noted. "Our school had a tiny pipe to the Internet, so we used APT's caching to make a server for the school so we could install at 10 MB/s. It was awesome.

"Bug tracking, dependency based booting, strict adherence to reasonable policies, releasing when it's ready... it goes on and on," Pogson concluded. "Debian GNU/Linux is a great distro. Try it. You'll like it."

'In Danger of Becoming Irrelevant'

Of course, here on the Linux blogs, there's always room for debate.

"Debian is No. 1? Why am I not surprised," retorted Roberto Lim, a lawyer and blogger on Mobile Raptor. "Sometimes I really feel like the Linux community, which used to be about innovation and building the best next thing, has lost touch with society and are in danger of becoming irrelevant."

The real No. 1 distro is Ubuntu, Lim asserted: "It is the only one with a shot at becoming more than a niche in a niche market."

'They Will Get Pushed Aside'

Then again: "Ubuntu has stumbled lately," opined consultant and Slashdot blogger Gerhard Mack.

"With its emphasis on tablets, they have forgotten about the desktops," Mack explained. "Now the competitors are building on the lessons learned from Ubuntu's rise and leapfrogging them now that they are fading. If they don't correct themselves they will get pushed aside."

Of course, "the fact that this happens so easily is what makes Linux great," Mack added.

'You'd Have to Be a Nut'

Hyperlogos blogger Martin Espinoza took issue with TuxRadar's inclusion of Fedora.

"Putting Fedora at the top of a 'best distributions' list is like putting a prototype car at the top of a list of cars to buy this year," Espinoza told Linux Girl.

"Fedora is the alpha test version for RHEL," he explained. "They break things there first. You'd have to be a nut to run it on a production system (though apparently, many people do) because the entire purpose of Fedora is to permit Red Hat (NYSE: RHT) to try new things and break stuff."

'A Good Distro That Deserves Mention'

Slashdot blogger hairyfeet recommended Vector Linux.

"They have SEVEN different versions, from SOHO to mini live, and with the exception of being a PITB to set up wireless, it is actually pretty nice," hairyfeet said.

The software is laptop-friendly, "only takes up 3GB, uses a nice XFCE, gives you plenty of software, all in all a good distro that deserves mention," hairyfeet concluded. "Oh and it is based on Slax so it isn't just another Debian ripoff."

'People Want Choice'

For Barbara Hudson, a blogger on Slashdot who goes by "Tom" on the site, it's all good.

"I keep hearing these calls for 'Linux unification' and 'one distribution to rule them all' and 'unifying the desktop,' but this survey reinforces the 'choice is good' mantra -- people *want* choice," Hudson told Linux Girl.

"It also shows the benefits of open competition," she added. "When every distro is free to use their competitors' code, the way to acquire and keep users is to be best at giving people what they want, instead of locking them in with proprietary data formats or programs.

"Large markets (like *the whole world*) are going to have enough of a variety of different market segments that even 1 percent is enough to support a healthy Linux ecology," Hudson pointed out. "Movement in 'who's the top 5' is confirmation that linux distros are nowhere near stagnating."

'Better Than Pulling an HP'

Hudson's vote? "With all the good points for each distro, I'm going to pretend I'm in Chicago and 'vote early, vote often' so I can say I voted for the winner, no matter what," she asserted. "If you read the comments, even the BSDs got a few mentions as well; just like old-style elections, even the dead count!"

So, even the distros that are "making what I think are questionable choices, such as Ubuntu with the Unity interface, get part of my vote," Hudson concluded. "Trying different things, exploring different ideas, taking risks -- it's better than pulling an HP and just giving up. After all, there was a time not so long ago when using Linux was seen as 'different' and 'risky.'"

Computing » FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 3

The Internet has become the most popular medium of software interchange for open source projects, as well as how most people receive updates for proprietary software. Arguing that the Internet is not a customary medium for exchanging software because some people can't access it makes as little sense as arguing that DVDs aren't an acceptable medium because people with netbooks or tablets don't have DVD drives.

FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 2

Where did this "you are permanently barred from distributing" stuff originate? In digging around, I found a post titled "A Practical Guide to GPL Compliance" at the Software Freedom Law Center dated August 26, 2008, written by the team of Bradley M. Kuhn, Aaron Williamson and Karen M. Sandler.

5.2 Termination

...

If you have redistributed an application under GPLv2, but have violated the terms of GPLv2, you must request a reinstatement of rights from the copyright holders before making further distributions, or else cease distribution and modification of the software forever. Different copyright holders condition reinstatement upon different requirements, and these requirements can be (and often are) wholly independent of the GPL. The terms of your reinstatement will depend upon what you negotiate with the copyright holder of the GPL'd program.

Since your rights under GPLv2 terminate automatically upon your initial violation, all subsequent distributions are violations and infringements of copyright. Therefore, even if you resolve a violation on your own, you must still seek a reinstatement of rights from the copyright holders whose licenses you violated, lest you remain liable for infringement for even compliant distributions made subsequent to the initial violation.

...

In the context of a GPL violation, and particularly under v2's termination provision, the copyright holder may have a range of requests in exchange for reinstatement of rights.

This completely overlooks the fact that section 6 of the same GPLv2 states that a new GPLv2 license is automatically granted with every copy of the program received. Any products that would be infringing would be limited to those that were shipped under a previously terminated license. Another issue is whether such a lopsided interpretation is copyright abuse and could nullify the license restrictions.

But let's take a break from the legal mumbo-jumbo.

How Do People Get F/LOSS Software Nowadays?

I find mine on the Net. If you're reading this, there's a good chance you do too. Now consider section 4.1.1 of the same SFLC article, which states:

GPLv2 refers to the various storage mechanisms as "medi[a] customarily used for software interchange." While the Internet has attained primacy as a means of software distribution where super-fast Internet connections are available, GPLv2 was written at a time when downloading software was not practical (and was often impossible). For much of the world, this condition has not changed since GPLv2's publication, and the Internet still cannot be considered "a medium customary for software interchange." (emphasis added)

Seriously? It was possible to find three people who still believed that in 2008? And put their names to it? 1991 called, and they want their AOL and Compuserve back. The Internet is definitely "a medium customary for software interchange." It has become the most popular medium of software interchange for open source projects, as well as how most people receive updates for proprietary software.

Arguing that the Internet is not a customary medium for exchanging software because some people can't access it makes as little sense as arguing that DVDs aren't an acceptable medium because people with netbooks or tablets don't have DVD drives.

Times Change

There's a history of using this "on the Internet doesn't count -- it must be on a CD or DVD" argument to try to encourage distributors to ship the source side-by-side with the program itself, rather than just an offer of the source. That sort of coercion is not acceptable.

Throwing a CD in every box is bad for the environment. In embedded devices such as TVs and routers, embedding the source in the device wastes memory and increases costs to consumers. Memory might be cheap, but it's not free, and designers of embedded applications frequently find themselves fighting for every bit of RAM. It's why they ship busybox instead of the individual utilities.

Today, exchanging software "on the Internet" is as valid as "on a DVD," and certainly better than "on a floppy."

Computing » FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 4

Sharing source code benefits everyone involved. However, heavy-handed attempts to impose further restrictions on end-users beyond the license, or to ask people to harass developers to switch, just come off as "sturm und drang" by nitpickers. Hopefully this doesn't presage the rise of the GNUstapo.

FSF's Star Turn in the Android FUDathon, Part 3

"Strike while the iron is hot" -- and the usual suspects have made Android licensing a hot issue. However, the title of the FSF article, "Android GPLv2 termination worries -- one more reason to upgrade to GPLv3," gives the game away. This is about politics, not licensing. About pushing a specific agenda. About promoting the GPLv3 license at the expense of the GPLv2, Linux, Android and reality.

It's natural that there will be people and organizations engaging in bit of opportunistic profile-raising when they see an opportunity. Sometimes, as with the FSF GPLv2 FUD, they overreach and need to be called on it. And sometimes they really put their foot in it, as the Linux Foundation's Jim Zemlin did when he recently labeled businesses that don't contribute back code as "idiots."

One Size Does Not Fit All

If the GPLv3 were so wonderful, there would be no need to post articles saying, "Companies that sell products that use Android can help out by encouraging the developers of Linux to make the switch to GPLv3." Especially when the reality is that releasing the decryption keys to unlock mobile systems would kill Android on Linux, and the developers are already on record as saying they have no problems with the current license and have better things to do with their time.

The social and political objectives of the FSF (and by extension, gnu.org) are not always the same as other members of the community. In a world with various shades of grey and different needs and goals, the reality is that one license does not fit all projects, and zealotry is ugly.

What Isn't Free Software?

When I go to the Free Software Foundation home page, I see this:

you deserve to use software that is:

• free from restriction
• free to share and copy
• free to learn and adapt
• free to work with others
• you deserve free software.

Critics have rightly pointed out that by this definition, the GPL does not meet these standards. This doesn't make it a bad license -- sharing source code benefits everyone involved. However, heavy-handed attempts to impose further restrictions on end-users beyond the license, or to ask people to harass developers to switch, just come off as "sturm und drang" by nitpickers. Hopefully this doesn't presage the rise of the GNUstapo.

Some Takeaways

1. If you are a coder, do not give up your control over your work by assigning copyrights to an organization that says "trust us." They may decide at some future date to "leverage" your code in ways you never intended;
2. Remove any references to "or any later version" of the license. If you wouldn't give them a blank check, don't give them the license equivalent;
3. Keep in mind how a magician will always try to get you to focus your attention on one hand, so you don't see what the other hand is doing. The original article overemphasizes section 4 of the GPL to make a case for "permanent" risk, in the hope that you won't notice the ease of obtaining a new license without encumbrances in section 6, or ignore the fact that take-it-or-leave-it licenses are always interpreted in the recipients' favor;
4. Don't believe everything the license says. The GPL says that you have no rights if you do not accept the license, which is simply not true. The GPL (any version) only applies to the extent that copyright law currently allows it. Post-Feist, there are more restrictions on what is actually copyrightable. There is no "sweat of the brow" copyright, nor other material that fails to meet, even slightly, the constitutional basis for copyright -- to "promote the progress of science and useful arts," aka encouraging creative expression;
5. If someone is particularly nasty, keep in mind that courts have also held (Assessment Technologies v. Wiredata) that even the copying of complete copyrighted programs without the copyright holders' permission is allowed if the only way to extract non-protected data is to do so, and that abusive copyright holders can lose their rights;
6. There are always alternatives, whether it's a particular program, a toolchain, or an operating system.

The Ultimate Consequences

Casting doubt on Android and Linux licensing has two easily discernable effects. Manufacturers, for their part, will be more likely to consider other platforms, and who can blame them?

And it's a safe bet that Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) is working on a BSD-hosted version of Android as a fallback. I know if I were them, that's what I'd be doing, just in case.

Computing » Parallels 7 Swings In

Parallels' virtualization software for Mac has been bumped up to version 7. The new edition supports special features found in OS X Lion, like the operating system's new gesture controls, as well as enhanced speed when running Windows. The company has also integrated a mobile app that lets you control a Parallels-running Mac from an iOS device.

A new version of Parallels Desktop, the software that allows you to run multiple operating systems on your Mac simultaneously, was released this week. This latest edition of the popular virtualization software, which is on more than 3 million desktops worldwide, has more than 90 new and enhanced features, as well as a new mobile app that runs on the iPhone, iPad and iPod touch.

This release of Parallels, version 7, also supports the latest edition of Apple's (Nasdaq: AAPL) OS X operating system, Lion.

Version 7 of the software is 120 percent faster than its leading competitor when copying files in Windows, according to Parallels, and 40 percent faster when starting and resuming Windows. It's faster than release 6 of the program, too -- 60 percent faster when resuming Windows and for some applications, 45 percent faster for 3D graphics.

Better Speed

This latest release is definitely an improvement over the previous version, according to Ivan Drucker, of IvanExpert, a company that provides support to users of Apple products. "I was pretty happy with version 6, but [version 7] does feel more responsive, and more speed is always better," he told MacNewsWorld.

Among Mac users, Parallels has a reputation for strong integration of the operating systems that it's running, while its chief commercial competitor, VMware (NYSE: VMW) Fusion, is known for its speed. That may not be the case anymore. "At this point, I feel that Parallels is ahead of VMware on both fronts," Drucker said.

In addition to support of Lion features -- such as Mission Control, Launch Pad and full-screen scroll gestures -- and speed improvements, the new Parallels allows multiple copies of Lion to be run simultaneously, as well as running operating systems other than Windows, such as Chrome and Ubuntu. If those operating systems are running in Parallels, though, they can't access Lion's features as Windows can.

It also has a Windows On Demand feature that allows that operating system to be purchased directly from inside Parallels. What's more, a Mac's iSight or FaceTime HD camera can be used by both Mac and Windows programs.

To Upgrade or Not to Upgrade?

Released along with Parallels is a a mobile app, available from the iTunes store, that allows a Mac running Parallels 7 to be remotely controlled by one of Apple's mobile devices. Through it, you can watch Flash videos running in Windows on a device like an iPad, which doesn't support that technology. In addition, text can be cut, copied and pasted between applications running in Parallels and the mobile device.

Of course, the question that arises whenever a new version of any software is released is, is it worth it? "Is it an essential upgrade? I don't know. Is it a worthwhile upgrade? Yes," Drucker said.

Much of the buzz of several years surrounding desktop virtual machine products like Parallels seems to have waned, but the demand for them hasn't. "The demand has been off the charts," claimed John Uppendahl, Parallels' senior director for global communications, told MacNewsWorld "It's increased significantly year over year."

While not a staple for most computer users, virtual machine software has gained a following among business users with specialized needs or need for a particular piece of software that isn't available for the Mac, as well as some gamers, explained Ross Rubin, an analyst with the NPD Group.

"In the case of games, though, the best performance is achieved using dual booting," he added. "When you use virtualizaton software like Parallels or VMware, you need a beefier machine configuration because you're running two operating systems at the same time."

The standard retail price for Parallels 7 for the Mac is US$79.99. There's also a student edition for $39.99 and a switch from VMWare Fusion edition for $49.99. Current users of Parallels can upgrade the version 7 for $49.99. In addition, there's a 14-day, fully functional trial version available as a free download from the company's website.

Computing » Greenies Give Google 'Good Example' Props

Google has opened the books on the amount of power it needs to run its multitude of data centers and services worldwide. The grand total is enough to power 41 Empire State Buildings. Environmental groups have praised Google's move toward transparency and recognized the company's green initiatives, though they questioned claims that the company is carbon neutral.

For the first time in the search engine's history, Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) revealed just how much electricity it takes to power its massive computing infrastructure.

Google announced that for the year 2010, it used 2.6 million megawatt-hours of energy to run its data centers, search mechanisms, Gmail, YouTube and display ads globally. That number is about what it would take to power 200,000 homes in the U.S. each year, or equal to what it takes to power 41 Empire State Buildings annually.

The search engine giant uses a new illustrated report to explain the amount of energy it consumes and to promote its green efforts. Until now, the data was a closely guarded secret.

Green, but Could Be Greener

Environmental groups praised Google's announcement Thursday. Greenpeace in particular has been meeting with Google and other high-profile tech companies to encourage them to set an example.

"In the last two years, Google has actually made significant power improvements. They finally realized they had a competitive advantage to tell their story, and we certainly gave them a hard time to do that. You can be carbon neutral and you can be doing lots of great investments, but until you tell people about it and educate, you're not really doing as much to help," Gary Cook, IT analyst for Greenpeace International, told TechNewsWorld.

Some of the advances Google has made include trying to build energy-efficient data centers and taking growing notice of its carbon footprint, one that the company touted as carbon neutral or even "beyond zero." Its reasoning is that since tools like Gmail and rapid searches increase productivity and reduce waste, that offsets the footprint.

While Google has made giant steps in reducing emissions, Greenpeace says the zero carbon footprint is difficult to measure and probably not quite true.

"Google and other IT companies certainly do have significant opportunities to reduce emissions in other parts of the economy, especially if the data centers are attached to clean energy sources and can reduce consumption in other areas, but there's not really good evidence beyond anecdotal evidence for saying that Google is carbon neutral yet," said Cook.

Why the Big Reveal?

Google didn't respond to TechNewsWorlds' questions about why it chose to put out the information now, but as companies begin to compete more aggressively for a growing cloud computing market, Google may have decided transparency is the best policy in regard to its green effort in the tech space.

"This could be taking a page out of Facebook's initiative -- that's a company that has been a little more transparent as far as energy," Rick Summer, an analyst with Morningstar, told TechNewsWorld.

Other tech leaders such as Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT) have also gone public with energy consumption numbers in an effort to win investors and consumers on the cost-effective and socially friendly benefits that come with green policies. High-profile companies, especially in the tech industry, tend to follow each other with these types of major announcements.

"It's good overall for the industry. They don't always have an incentive for running efficiently with power, but folks like Facebook, Google and Microsoft can really be the catalyst for innovating data centers," said Summer.

The hope among environmental groups is that Google's announcement and the appeal of the cloud industry will lead to further transparency and a focus on green initiatives in the future.

"I think it's great they're putting their numbers out there, and I hope other companies do the same," said Cook.