JWM is especially lightweight on cpu usage. So you missed one window manager. i3-wm and dwm are also light, but they are much more minimal and have less functionality then JWM.

JWM, has the bare minimum I need for it to work on par with DEs but while still using very little resources.

You really don't need much to run jwm.

I bet it could run on less cpu power than almost every other window manager with a taskbar.

Touche, diplomacy is not my forte. My intent was was not personal disparagement but a technical disagreement on the measurement criteria. If I came across otherwise, my apologies.

My confrontational wording was largely due to ongoing frustration (here and elsewhere) with use of code or overall package size as a proxy for quality or usefulness. Obsessing over memory or disk space and perceived "bloat" does, as they say, "pull my chain", and doubly so when the numbers presented are potentially misleading.
None of that has anything to do with greenjeans personally of course, if it sounded like a personal attack, again, my apologies.

Cheers.

I think a bare install of Devuan with antiX scripts tossed in for good measure makes for a minimal system. Remove DEs and stick to a WM like i3 or DWM. Your only issue might be sticking with a browser that can access most of the modern Web, since Firefox and Chromium are heavy on GTK dependencies and will likely pull in D-Bus if installed "normally". Pale Moon and SeaMonkey are somewhere in between minimalism and usability.

Debian/Devuan is a general-purpose distribution, running on 20 year old hardware is not and should not be the priority. There are whole distros dedicated to minimising memory and disk use.

None of the so-called minimal distros are as good as doing a bare install of Debian/Devuan with a simple window manager,  So why wouldn't people be talking about using Debian/Devuan on old PCs? Many people consider it the best option for such machines.

You could get the same point across by being a bit more personal with the person you disagree with.

Touche, diplomacy is not my forte. My intent was was not personal disparagement but a technical disagreement on the measurement criteria. If I came across otherwise, my apologies.

My confrontational wording was largely due to ongoing frustration (here and elsewhere) with use of code or overall package size as a proxy for quality or usefulness. Obsessing over memory or disk space and perceived "bloat" does, as they say, "pull my chain", and doubly so when the numbers presented are potentially misleading.
None of that has anything to do with greenjeans personally of course, if it sounded like a personal attack, again, my apologies.

If you had included this initially:

...the entire thing would have been better received.

This would have been a more constructive way to criticize what someone said that you disagreed on:

Instead, they (myself included) read it as:

You could get the same point across by being a bit more personal with the person you disagree with. Like I said, I'm generally on your side when you go after some of the actual complainers and other specimens existing solely to waste space (they deserve it), but Greenjeans isn't the type of person to be on the receiving end. He's a good dude. That is all.

P.S. I can only speak for myself, but I am not in the "hurt feelings" crowd. I can take a heated disagreement. It's about understanding why you think a different way, instead of coming across as being a condescending prick, even if you say that wasn't the intention. That's really why Greenjeans was pissed off.

I also think Steve_V was incredibly rude in his responses to Greenjeans. There was no need for the putdown, let alone on someone who actually contributes code and hardly ever complains. There are a couple of others who'd warrant such treatment, but not him.

I can't stand GTK at all anymore, but at least it's more viable for a uniformed system. If you use Xfce, stick to GTK. If you use LXQt, stick to Qt. Mixing the two tends to draw in more system resources than not. Unfortunately, all GUI toolkit "options" are problematic in their own ways.

I wasn't poking fun at anyone

"Lol, in 29 mb" sure sounds like throwing shade at keepassxc on account of installed size, and that's a reflection on the developers, no?

Right, so documentation is bloat, and everyone speaks English. Got it.

Sure, I never said your program wasn't good. It's not your code or your contribution I took issue with, rather the misleading comparisons you keep making.

No, I'm giving you misery for making obviously skewed comparisons. Including translations isn't "bloat", it's basic accessibility.
Focusing on code size and/or memory footprint above all else is also rarely the whole picture, and frankly I'm tired of constantly hearing about it.

Same goes for the hair-shirt minimalism shtick in general, as popular as it appears around here. 4MiB or whatever is nothing, and translations are only loaded when needed.
Trading away features to be able to brag about how small something is is dumb, and not everyone needs or wants to compute on a turnip.
Debian/Devuan is a general-purpose distribution, running on 20 year old hardware is not and should not be the priority. There are whole distros dedicated to minimising memory and disk use.

If you want to poke fun at other developers and brag about how much smaller your stuff is, at least try not to be gratuitously disingenuous.

I wasn't poking fun at anyone, but yes I was bragging about my little scriptlet, and incredibly enough I am aware of dependencies (shocker huh?), which is why I know the program mentioned ALSO HAS DEPENDS, so yeah it's even larger than 29 mb which is what the package is listed at for installed size.

But sure, if you pull the cruft you mentioned out (which my app doesn't have or need), then maybe there is 4 mb of actual code. That's still 100 times larger than my little experiment. I'm sure it has some extra lovely features though that might be very handy.

What I made does the basic main task such things should do, it's tiny so there's a lot less to go wrong and it's easy to audit, and a good solid base if someone wanted to expand on it.

And damn, really toolkit bullshit?? Every gui program uses one toolkit or another, so that comment was nonsense. And no i'm not shoving all that QT crap into my system, GTK has issues but QT sucks too.

And wtf? You're on here usually giving people shit for complaining instead of doing something about it. And here I am trying to do something about it and you're giving me misery too?

Hell, you're probably right, I don't know why I bother. Maybe time for another break from linux for me.

in 29 mb

The application is 4.1MiB, the rest is non-code assets such as icons, translations and documentation.

Plus libsodium to do most of the difficult things a password manager needs (i.e. robust encryption), which is more than 10x that size on it's own. Not to mention whatever GUI toolkit you're using, (which I can't be arsed looking into because it's probably GTbarf) and all the translations and documentation you haven't written.

If you want to poke fun at other developers and brag about how much smaller your stuff is, at least try not to be gratuitously disingenuous.

ffp asked about keepassxc-minimal.

Quote:

“This package includes only the bare minimal functionality, and no security complications like networking, SSH agent, browser plugin, fdo secret storage. See keepassxc-full if you absolutely need those.”

Lol, in 29 mb, I just made something that does most of the same in 40 kb.