Thought that I had made it clear that I expect these lead devs are far more experienced than you two?
Also: I would not be so smug as to believe that I could do better therefore I fully accept the kernels that these devs offer without a thought other than my appreciation and gratitude for treating efficiency with the respect it deserves

No need - just use a wattmeter an Empirical test - check the read out - simple

There you go yet again with theoretical reasoning, which can be done without any direct observation of ‘real life’. Real life = Empirical testing as per DistroWatch reviews

Sure - I have done just that - Empirical testing of various Linux disros and DEs on the same laptop comparing apples with apples.
I do not mind being the target - hands up - of any of the distros that I have Empirically tested - I want to use a web browser, web mail, edit images, use Libre Office or AbiWord, play videos and music, record and edit videos etc in an efficient manner - simple

I don't know those people, but I can tell you that the very first version of the kernel I compiled myself was 2.2.5 in 1999... or was it 1998? I can't remember the year exactly, but it was definitely version 2.2.5. I can recall cutting it back substantially, and having it support all of my hardware in around 250Kb... yes kilobytes.

Anyhow, goodbye and good luck. I'll not bother you any more.

2 members found this post helpful.

You could easily migrate to Devuan which is a very popular non-systemd port of Debian. For example:
https://www.devuan.org/os/documentat...o-beowulf.html
Then cutting it down would be easier.

For Reference: Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye) uses kernel 5.10 whereas Antix uses a customised version as follows….

-Version-
Kernel : Linux 5.10.142-antix.2-amd64-smp (x86_64)
Version : #1 SMP PREEMPT Fri Sep 9 21:15:01 EEST 2022
C Library : GNU C Library / (Debian GLIBC 2.31-13+deb11u5) 2.31
Distribution : Debian GNU/Linux 11 (bullseye)


Thanks – I appreciate that. Was hoping to knock Debian into shape somewhere near Antix’s efficiency but is proving nigh on impossible. Is Devuan as inefficient as Debian? Or as efficient as Antix-22 Full?
However I took a look at your link – Wo..! Sure is complicated. Is there no iso to download from which a live USB can be made?

Getting back on topic...
Hopefully someone can deduce from Htop comparison of Antix & Debian as to why Debian is so heavy on resources. Htop listed in memory usage order shows how different the two distros run.
I cannot guarantee without assistance that both Htops are setup exactly the same.

https://imgur.com/a/dKlW9mF Antix & Debian Htops

Please excuse small text in uxterm as I wanted to show htop itself in both lists as a marker….
Do the numerals in red signify anything important?

Thanks...

Attached Thumbnails

 

Debian uses far more services than antiX as you can clearly see in the output of htop.
Try turning off ones you know you don't need.
That will get some RAM usage down.

1 members found this post helpful.

Easy:- https://www.devuan.org/get-devuan
Once you have it installed, you can start cutting down what is not needed.

Btw, long gone are the days when Debian followed the *nix philosophy, nowadays expect bloat courtesy of RH/Micro$oft.

1 members found this post helpful.

We have ad our ups and downs; downs mostly, water under the bridge; must say it’s big of you to help me out so sincere thanks from me.
So htop markers highlighted the processes, not sure what “services” are..?
As you say we can see that with Debian there are many more processes listed above htop’s requirement of resources.
Think I am now reaching the stage of diminishing returns? If you need a lightweight Debian OS there may be only one choice – AntiX - any flavour..

Tried Debian based BunsenLabs with a full installation. Wo! Never seen openbox maxed out before. So many apps and utils available and repeated in various menus. Even with conky, panel and tint removed it was still even heavier than Debian-LXDE so did not waste much time on it – I wiped the drive yet again.

Gave Debian MX LXDE based Pin-OS a live test which was fine but still heavy. Attempting to install it failed at the very end which also left me without grub so unable to boot. A certain logic there
After three or four failed attempts from this live USB stick made using the Antix-MX setting I remade the live USB using the dd setting. Four further attempts including CLI tty all failed.
Remade the live USB from latest Loc-OS 64 iso. This is essentially Antix with the LXDE desktop environment incorporated correctly and the choice of four ready made custom themes – each vastly different. Just click your choice in the settings manager – job done; sorted Classic-MacOS-WinXP-Retro Gaming.
Nice to be straight back into efficiency as only very slightly heavier than last time I tried it at 216MiB up from 175MiB. As with my Antix-22 Full LXDE it is wickedly fast, though I have already deleted some apps and added Gimp, perhaps remove unwanted themes, then remove tint and all that panel stuff.
https://imgur.com/a/pYwxY3n Debian Trials – Bunsen – Loc-OS
Think I might play with Loc-OS on my 8G Dell Latitude i7 for a while as I have my 2008 HP G60 3GiB laptop for everyday use running Antix-22 LXDE.
Thanks to all

I tried all versions of Loc Os and no one of them boot
just stuck and nothing on my E5300 2GB ram and radeon 5450 2GB ram
...why is that ?

do i need to try Legacy OS ?

Try Antix and Bodhi. One of them may suit you.