Phil<p><a href="https://mastodon.scot/@simon_brooke" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@simon_brooke@mastodon.scot</a> <a href="https://fosstodon.org/@Tallish_Tom" class="u-url mention" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">@Tallish_Tom@fosstodon.org</a><span> <br>That doesn't decrease the cost of using up 100,000x more compute and RAM than necessary to communicate most messages/ notes.<br><br>It only pushes that direct monetary cost on the reader, while still contributing to excess power use and waste.<br><br>Let's look at a typical workload case.<br><br>My website (</span><a href="https://bajsicki.com" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">https://bajsicki.com</a><span>) weighs about 31kb total (HTML, css and some js from hugo).<br><br>Just loading it up in </span><code>surf</code><span>, the lightest browser I know, eats up 163MB of RAM.<br><br>That's for just the home page, which barely has any content in it. <br><br>To contrast:<br><br>Loading up the plaintext from which I generate my entire blog (</span><code>bajsicki.com.org</code>, a perfectly legible 179kb file, also in <code>surf</code><span>), uses 157MB of memory.<br><br>And it contains ALL the posts I have ever made, and a number of drafts that I haven't published.<br><br>Opening the same file in </span><code>gedit</code><span>, uses 53.9MB. And you instantly have editing ability, which browsers don't offer. And you can pick your own fonts.<br><br>Opening it in </span><code>nvim</code> eats up 12.5MB. <code>Nano</code><span> still eats up 5.3MB in comparison.<br><br>No, I'm not testing ed.<br><br>So looking at this example, we can see that web browsers have the /worst/ compute-to-content ratio out of all options. <br><br>Let's round nano up to 6MB, and round surf down to 160MB.<br><br>So in the lightest web browser, we're still using 26x more RAM and compute than using nano in the case of a 179kb text file.<br><br>To display the same content. <br><br>That's absolutely deranged.<br><br>PS. Also, let's look at </span><code>cat</code> and <code>less</code><span>:<br><br></span><code>cat</code><span> is a 39kb binary file. I haven't been able to get its RAM usage. Still, it's smaller than the content, and prints to the terminal. So let's use the terminal. <br><br></span><code>xterm</code><span> 10.4MB<br></span><code>sakura</code><span> 41.7MB<br></span><code>alacritty</code><span> 25-60MB when idle<br><br>Running </span><code>less</code><span> takes 4.22MB of RAM on this 179kb file. <br><br>Better than nano.<br><br></span><code>more</code><span> uses 15.4MB.<br><br>Now for a comparison with </span><code>emacs</code><span>.<br>I run </span><code>Doom</code><span> with a good number of added packages, so my install is extremely bloated, and often laggy/ freezy, rarely crashy but it does happen when I mess around.<br><br>Let's see then.<br><br>Before:<br></span><code>64 buffers | 8846493 | 48 files, no processes</code><span><br></span><code>glances</code><span> tells me it's using 534MB RAM.<br><br>After: <br></span><code>65 buffers | 9025055 | 49 files, no processes</code><span><br></span><code>glances</code><span> tells me it's using 536MB RAM.<br><br>Granted, Emacs here doesn't have to load much as it's always running, yet compared to the terminals, and given it can open multiple files simultaneously, read email, etc.Actually let's see the first instance, reading the website in eww.<br><br>- RAM usage up to 545 (from 536), so 9MB of RAM.<br>- The </span><code>*eww*</code><span>buffer holds 1382 bytes.<br>- The website is perfectly legible, albeit lacks any formatting aside from links.<br><br>Compare:<br>- </span><code>lynx</code><span> 15.6 MB<br>- </span><code>links</code><span> 11 MB<br>- </span><code>w3m</code><span> 13.9 MB<br><br>Granted they load their own display stack, but if you're already running </span><a href="https://fed.bajsicki.com/tags/Emacs" rel="nofollow noopener noreferrer" target="_blank">#Emacs</a> then it's about cheaper to use <code>eww</code><span>.<br><br>We have, as a society, failed to contain our greed for shiny things.</span></p>