Memory usage

I suspect many are going to view that and not bother to click on it. Always better to give too much info than not enough.
So, is there a question? You show a graph, that if someone clicks on it, turns out to be the amount of memory that someone found, through probably not very rigorous testing, how much memory was used by different window managers 3 years ago.

There are few surprises.

Here's the original link.
And, while this might sound mean, it's really not intended to be, but if, for example, I was just taking a quick look through the forums and saw a small graphic with no explanation, I would not have clicked on it. It's better, in my less than humble opinion, to, when posting a link or an almost illegible graphic (though perhaps it's not as illegible on your machine) to give some sort of explanation.

So, for anyone else looking, this is from a 2013 article comparing various window managers. Here's the full article.

Though they did it on Linux, I'd guess that it would be fairly similar in FreeBSD, though I am sure that many have gotten somewhat more bloated in 3 years.
Graph shows specifications for Linux from 4 years ago and there's absolutely no context given. Moved thread to off-topic.

Unless the OP provides some context this thread will be closed.