The forest for the trees wouldn't begin to cover half these responses. Let me say it again, 60, 30, even 10GBs, is a lot when there's tooling from the same com

The forest for the trees wouldn't begin to cover half these responses. Let me say it again, 60, 30, even 10GBs, is a lot when there's tooling from the same company, that still make similarly functional binaries, that took 342 MB. You don't need to keep obsessing over "how dare this person with limited resources use an SSD!", like I said you run into similar issues with just downloading the stuff. Again, forest for the trees. - Instead maybe you can sit back and just ask "why the bloat over time"? And the reality is likely: "because no one optimized for it". Because for them lots of fast storage and internet speed are no problem That line of reasoning maybe allows you to see things from a different prospective and break some assumptions about end users. Isn't that more useful than browbeating some random for not having 30GB free on their SSD?