colord_1.4.6 claims to require 7.8 times more Resident Memory as colord_1.4.5. AFAIK, nothing major has been added/incorporated which would justify this substanially encreased resident memory requirement.

It's Gnome software, isn't that enough to explain it...? ;)
-

Since there are only 16 commits between "Release colord 1.4.5" and "Release colord 1.4.5" [sic], if someone were so inclined they could use git bisect to identify what commit might have changed things.

Though there are also several "trivial: fix a small memory leak ..." commits made in April last year, not yet in a release, so perhaps those are relevant.

$ cat /etc/devuan_version ; free -m
chimaera
               total        used        free      shared  buff/cache   available
Mem:          128887      102819       21226          61        4841       24548
Swap:          16383         179       16204

And this box doesn't even run a GUI

I will never understand this constant obsessing over memory, it's like some kind of religion here.

I have to use color-management by default with xfce4.

The ps output for chinaera:

colord  1777  0.1  0.1  239288   14896 ?  Sl  10:16   0:00 /usr/libexec/colord

and for daedalus:

colord  2260  0.6  1.4  341496  116452 ?  Sl  09:57  0:00 /usr/libexec/colord

colord_1.4.6 claims to require 7.8 times more Resident Memory as colord_1.4.5. AFAIK, nothing major has been added/incorporated which would justify this substanially encreased resident memory requirement.

This makes the 1.4.6 version the top-contender for the most memory-hungry daemon.

Soon we need 32Gig just to run a DE alone.

... "You may modify the style sheet in any way you wish, but not the HTML." ...

Yes, and a clean HTML code is very clear. Errors are quickly detected.
You can play creatively with the style sheet. But for some things, e.g. scientific texts, you don't even need a style sheet. For me, this is currently the most economical and practical way to store texts (including links).

jue-gen wrote:

Unfortunately, nobody writes HTML in the editor these days.

I'm pretty sure that a few people in this very forum still do. And I'm one of those

Ahhh, that feels good ... 👍

jue-gen wrote:

Unfortunately, nobody writes HTML in the editor these days.

I'm pretty sure that a few people in this very forum still do. And I'm one of those

Indeed . . . devuan.org was crafted from scratch by hellekin. It has gone through some changes but that code is mostly still in use and I always created my sites in a text editor too.

[edit] There was a time when exploring the creative possibilities of html and css was a "thing":

http://www.csszengarden.com/

The only rule is:

"You may modify the style sheet in any way you wish, but not the HTML."

Do take a tour through their gallery . . . though it seems a bit broken atm . . .

[edit2] Another interesting option to add to a site created in a text editor is  Flat Press which use to be an no-database version of wordpress. Have no idea where it's gone since I last used it.

Sorry for the OT, folks . . .

Unfortunately, nobody writes HTML in the editor these days.

I'm pretty sure that a few people in this very forum still do. And I'm one of those

Do you know about Project Gemini? Produces sane web pages . . .

Some time ago I heard about it. Yes, that is interesting ...

... But the main "intruder" is modern sites, with their "decorations", browsers are forced to support them, although, in most cases, they are completely unnecessary.

Yes, I see it the same way. Unfortunately, nobody writes HTML in the editor these days. For many pages that would be enough and it would be better for the eye and orientation than those horrible pages created with CMS tools like Wordpress. If the actual information of a page in the source code is only 0.5%, then something is wrong. This code bloat is sick and it costs masses of electrical energy. We have the same thing with HTML mails. I once read that 1 less nuclear power plant would be needed on earth if everyone composing HTML mails switched to TXT mails.

An objective measure of enough memory is zero swap file usage.
With 4 GB of memory on three of my computers for my tasks (web surfing, photo editing, etc.) it is empty.
And the use of memory after startup is a consequence of running services and the size of the kernel. Compile yours for the really needed supported functions if a few megabytes is critical.

But the main "intruder" is modern sites, with their "decorations", browsers are forced to support them, although, in most cases, they are completely unnecessary.

... Chimaera with 2G and 5G ... Daedalus with 2G and 5G

Yes, there is no difference or no significant difference.
For me it looks like this with Daedalus:
free -h
                                        total       used         free        shared     buff/cache      available
recovery mode                14 Gi      473 Mi      14 Gi       1.1 Mi      172 Mi            14 Gi
KDE Plasma Wayland     14 Gi      1,5 Gi       13 Gi       35  Mi      750 Mi            13 Gi

I find 473 Mi in recovery mode relatively high. That was the memory consumption including Xfce4 in the past. Less was used with LXQT and even less with LXDE.
Well, of course you also get something for this increased memory consumption. I don't want to grumble. But if you want an up-to-date system with Wayland for security reasons, it starts to get difficult with older systems.

735-765 on boot with Terminal + HTOP
and thats with I2PD chewing resources at boot also

SSMD instead of LightDM
openbox instead of XfceWM

image :-
https://transfer.sh/eStBpf/charliebrownau_Debian11_memeory_Feb2023.png