hcbrugmans at gmail.com
Thu Dec 1 13:19:02 GMT 2005
James Livingston wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-11-30 at 21:20 -0500, Lukas Sabota wrote:
>>What would be wrong with sending deleted files from any medium to the
>>user's trash? (/home/user/.Trash)? A .Trash file in the medium is rather
>>confusing, why have more than one trash can just because of a different
>>medium? And on your point, why would files from a different medium be
>>deleted? It would make sense for all deleted files, regardless of
>>medium, to be moved to a users central trash.
> I'm in the not-uncommon situation of having two hard drives. One
> contains my root partion and my /home partition (amongst others), the
> other (larger) one has my music, videos, etc. and get mounted
> on /media/data. Many people have something similar with a large FAT32
> partition to share things between Ubuntu and Windows.
> Moving files to ~/.Trash when they get sent to the trash wouldn't be a
> good idea here, because they are potentially multi-gigabyte files which
> a) would be slow, and b) the files may not even fit on my /home
> I know several people who have a similar setup, but their large drive is
> a portable usb/firewire enclosed drive. I'm not sure if there is a good
> way of telling the difference between that and something where moving to
> ~/.Trash might make sense.
> James "Doc" Livingston
On the other hand, for media with limited size, usb sticks, zip drives,
floppies, ipod-thingy's, etc a .trash folder is cumbersome and annoying.
In my use case, I copy my.~/documents folder and drag it along on a
128mb drive. Should fit fine, save for the fact that every time I delete
something, it sticks around in .trash, which is very unintuitive for me,
so I only find out about it when some program complains the drive is full.
More information about the ubuntu-devel