Scheduled Maintenance: We are aware of an issue with Google, AOL, and Yahoo services as email providers which are blocking new registrations. We are trying to fix the issue and we have several internal and external support tickets in process to resolve the issue. Please see: viewtopic.php?t=158230

 

 

 

10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

Off-Topic discussions about science, technology, and non Debian specific topics.
Message
Author
Bulkley
Posts: 6383
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#1 Post by Bulkley »

It's all about features and glitz; the more you have the more of a resource hog it becomes. You can streamline your system, use less bloated software and a window manager instead of desktop to lighten the load.

Segfault
Posts: 993
Joined: 2005-09-24 12:24
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#2 Post by Segfault »

My system uses under 100 MB with fully loaded GUI. However, starting up Chromium and opening a modern website consumes 500 MB easy. And some noobs go crazy buying RAM, home desktop with 64 GB of RAM? Well, all I can say if you got money you do not need brains.

n_hologram
Posts: 459
Joined: 2013-06-16 00:10

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#3 Post by n_hologram »

I hear your concerns. I think it's important to remember that developers have always made a similar argument. It's the common consumer who drives the market, though, so companies and organizations will err towards profit.

The trick is to build on a minimal base. My project boots to 60-70mb of RAM, about 90-100 with a GUI (window manager) and about 125-160 with a light DE like xfce/lxde/lxqt. Lots of others do, too.
bester69 wrote:There is nothing to install in linux, from time to time i go to google searching for something fresh to install in linux, but, there is nothing
the crunkbong project: scripts, operating system, the list goes on...

User avatar
Nili
Posts: 441
Joined: 2014-04-30 14:04
Location: $HOME/♫♪
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 3 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#4 Post by Nili »

Debian / Devuan (Jessie) NETINST is still at 20MB with little adjustment & efforts.

...But I understand the situation very much, Where the principle is transformed from KISS to put as much RAM in vain with pretexts every problem is fixed by having as much RAM as possible.

I do not like this situation, However, there are still room(s) to fix things by themselves.
openSUSE Tumbleweed KDE/Wayland

♫♪ Elisa playing...
Damascus Cocktail ♪ Black Reverie ♪ Dye the sky.

Bulkley
Posts: 6383
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#5 Post by Bulkley »

I didn't start this thread. What happened to the OP?

User avatar
GarryRicketson
Posts: 5644
Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
Location: Durango, Mexico

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#6 Post by GarryRicketson »

It turned out it was a bot, and you were the first to have replied to it, so now it is your topic :mrgreen:
I guess, since there were a few replies, the admin decided to keep the posts that were replies.

Bulkley
Posts: 6383
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#7 Post by Bulkley »

GarryRicketson wrote:It turned out it was a bot . . .
Fascinating. I suspect there is a lot of that around. How does one recognize a bot?

User avatar
GarryRicketson
Posts: 5644
Joined: 2015-01-20 22:16
Location: Durango, Mexico

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#8 Post by GarryRicketson »

Good question, but maybe a different off topic, the problem though I wouldn't /won't go into details on that on a public forum, Why ? because then the "bot creators", might get ideas, .... I will send you a PM
Well any way on this one, it might not have been a bot, I suppose I should have said spammer, but any way in this case it was the signature, and it was their first post, and actually only post.
I had my suspicions, when I looked at the signature, and the links in it. But essentially the post was ok, and there had been 2 replies, yours and Segfault .
So any way, then later we had another new member register, but still had not posted anything, how ever it was using the same signature, with 3 links in it I sent the info to the admin, and they agreed, and deleted both users that were promoting the site in their signature.

User avatar
bw123
Posts: 4015
Joined: 2011-05-09 06:02
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#9 Post by bw123 »

since this is offtopic, let me add:
10 yrs ago, one machine I am using came with 2GB minimum ram, another with 1GB.

Describing something as "X-times less' is really a bad way of thinking. If your machine has 4gigs, then ten times that is 40, and 40gigs less than 4 is -36GB of RAM.

So, I respectfully agree, it was a bot, a really dumb bot.
http://timesless.com/
resigned by AI ChatGPT

User avatar
oswaldkelso
df -h | grep > 20TiB
df -h | grep > 20TiB
Posts: 1490
Joined: 2005-07-26 23:20
Location: UK
Has thanked: 1 time
Been thanked: 58 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#10 Post by oswaldkelso »

My old Debian Desktop from 2007
opps better add one with the browser
https://b2aeaa58a57a200320db-8b65b95250 ... p_2007.png

https://b2aeaa58a57a200320db-8b65b95250 ... s_snap.png

My current desktop shows using PS_Mem. There are 40 channels in weechat that's why its looking fat

Code: Select all

  3.2 MiB + 898.5 KiB =   4.1 MiB	openbox
  5.0 MiB + 505.5 KiB =   5.5 MiB	bash (4)
  5.4 MiB + 661.0 KiB =   6.1 MiB	wicd
  6.9 MiB +   2.2 MiB =   9.1 MiB	notification-daemon
  6.9 MiB +   2.3 MiB =   9.2 MiB	lilyterm
 10.7 MiB +   9.3 MiB =  20.0 MiB	Xorg
 39.2 MiB + 259.5 KiB =  39.4 MiB	weechat-curses
216.9 MiB +  11.2 MiB = 228.0 MiB	seamonkey
---------------------------------
                        366.1 MiB
=================================
bash-4.2# 
That said my D3 install shows 24MB-28MB to boot to the desktop and 7MB to the console. We don't have many packages built yet :lol:

Anyway the upshot is I'm still using similar applications, it's the DE & browsers that's getting fatter because I still surf the same basic way. In fact my desktop is now more refined I need less applications than I did back then because now each one is better setup. Most of my machine have 1-2GB of ram the best have 3-4GB If any of them get near using 1GB there is something seriously wrong. The one thing that gets fatter year on year is the browser. The slower browsing gets the more I revert to the likes of lynx, links -g (great usability) dillo with spoof ssl and netsurf. Even started using gopher!

As for DE's. I installed KDE5 on my netbook last month . I almost did a hard reset I thought it was frozen, nope just incredibly slow! I turned everything possible off and it was just about usable. Wiped it and went back to my custom icewm, openbox, and windowmaker.
Free Software Matters
Ash init durbatulûk, ash init gimbatul,
Ash init thrakatulûk agh burzum-ishi krimpatul.
My oldest used PC: 1999 imac 333Mhz 256MB PPC abandoned by Debian

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#11 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

oswaldkelso wrote:The one thing that gets fatter year on year is the browser.
^ This.
oswaldkelso wrote:The slower browsing gets the more I revert to the likes of lynx, links -g (great usability) dillo with spoof ssl and netsurf. Even started using gopher!
Have you tried links2?

It has an X mode with antialiasing and pictures:

Code: Select all

/usr/bin/xlinks2
I run the same (dwm) desktop on all my machines and systemd & glibc seem to be a relatively "heavy" combination in respect of resource usage — Alpine Linux manages half the RAM usage of Debian thanks to OpenRC & musl libc.

EDIT: awesome screenshots :cool:
deadbang

User avatar
None1975
df -h | participant
df -h | participant
Posts: 1388
Joined: 2015-11-29 18:23
Location: Russia, Kaliningrad
Has thanked: 45 times
Been thanked: 65 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#12 Post by None1975 »

GarryRicketson wrote:It turned out it was a bot
Very interesting. Op (Bulkley) has written 5629 posts. If he is a bot, what is the forum administration doing? Or is it your fantasy fruit?
OS: Debian 12.4 Bookworm / DE: Enlightenment
Debian Wiki | DontBreakDebian, My config files on github

User avatar
Head_on_a_Stick
Posts: 14114
Joined: 2014-06-01 17:46
Location: London, England
Has thanked: 81 times
Been thanked: 132 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#13 Post by Head_on_a_Stick »

None1975 wrote:Op (Bulkley) has written 5629 posts. If he is a bot
I don't know for sure (I didn't crop the thread) but I think the original OP was moved to our "Spam" section and then deleted, presumably because it contained spam.

There is no suggestion that @Bulkley is a bot, how could a bot possibly be that awesome?
deadbang

Bulkley
Posts: 6383
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#14 Post by Bulkley »

None1975, rest assured, I'm not a bot. I'm also not the original poster to this thread. He/she/it has been removed.

milomak
Posts: 2158
Joined: 2009-06-09 22:20
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#15 Post by milomak »

i see it was a bot post.

i thought i had an i7 920 with 4GB 10 years ago (i think i got this 6 months or so later)

but it would seem it was the computer before that. i can't really remember but i have to believe it had a 1GB.

my curent computer has 8GB, so can confirm the 10x is false.

edit - didn't realise my laptop has 16GB
Desktop: A320M-A PRO MAX, AMD Ryzen 5 3600, GALAX GeForce RTX™ 2060 Super EX (1-Click OC) - Sid, Win10, Arch Linux, Gentoo, Solus
Laptop: hp 250 G8 i3 11th Gen - Sid
Kodi: AMD Athlon 5150 APU w/Radeon HD 8400 - Sid

n_hologram
Posts: 459
Joined: 2013-06-16 00:10

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#16 Post by n_hologram »

Bulkley wrote:None1975, rest assured, I'm not a bot. I'm also not the original poster to this thread. He/she/it has been removed.
Sounds like something a bot would say...
bester69 wrote:There is nothing to install in linux, from time to time i go to google searching for something fresh to install in linux, but, there is nothing
the crunkbong project: scripts, operating system, the list goes on...

Bulkley
Posts: 6383
Joined: 2006-02-11 18:35
Has thanked: 2 times
Been thanked: 39 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#17 Post by Bulkley »

n_hologram wrote:Sounds like something a bot would say...
:lol: Good one.

User avatar
debiman
Posts: 3063
Joined: 2013-03-12 07:18

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#18 Post by debiman »

thank you, bot, for this wonderful bikeshedding thread!

i am not a low-stat fetishist.
my desktop has almost 8GB RAM, and i hardly ever use even 1GB, even now, browsing with ~20 tabs open...
but i'm also not a gamer.

i agree with the assessment that 10 years (and even longer) ago we did the same with much "weaker" (of course they weren't weak _then_) machines.
i was actually surprised to see how "normal" some screenshots form the early 2000s look.
the same desktop paradigm as today.
notably:
https://www.linux.org.ru/gallery/archive/1999/11/
https://anders.unix.se/2015/10/28/scree ... ople-2002/
thread:
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=436

milomak
Posts: 2158
Joined: 2009-06-09 22:20
Been thanked: 1 time

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#19 Post by milomak »

debiman wrote:thank you, bot, for this wonderful bikeshedding thread!

i am not a low-stat fetishist.
my desktop has almost 8GB RAM, and i hardly ever use even 1GB, even now, browsing with ~20 tabs open...
but i'm also not a gamer.

i agree with the assessment that 10 years (and even longer) ago we did the same with much "weaker" (of course they weren't weak _then_) machines.
i was actually surprised to see how "normal" some screenshots form the early 2000s look.
the same desktop paradigm as today.
notably:
https://www.linux.org.ru/gallery/archive/1999/11/
https://anders.unix.se/2015/10/28/scree ... ople-2002/
thread:
https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=436
less than 1gb?

top

Code: Select all

top - 17:11:25 up 2 days, 20:31,  1 user,  load average: 2.83, 2.09, 1.29
Tasks: 254 total,   2 running, 251 sleeping,   0 stopped,   1 zombie
%Cpu(s): 27.9 us,  4.9 sy,  0.1 ni, 65.7 id,  0.3 wa,  0.0 hi,  1.2 si,  0.0 st
MiB Mem :   7880.7 total,    199.4 free,   6576.1 used,   1105.2 buff/cache
MiB Swap:      0.0 total,      0.0 free,      0.0 used.    890.4 avail Mem
Desktop: A320M-A PRO MAX, AMD Ryzen 5 3600, GALAX GeForce RTX™ 2060 Super EX (1-Click OC) - Sid, Win10, Arch Linux, Gentoo, Solus
Laptop: hp 250 G8 i3 11th Gen - Sid
Kodi: AMD Athlon 5150 APU w/Radeon HD 8400 - Sid

Segfault
Posts: 993
Joined: 2005-09-24 12:24
Has thanked: 5 times
Been thanked: 17 times

Re: 10 years ago we did the same with 10x less RAM

#20 Post by Segfault »

What's 'gb'? According to SI 'g' stands for gram and 'b' for bar. But of course, education is one of those thing you don't miss if you don't have it ...

Post Reply