deleted files not retained in trash

Using applications, configuring, problems
Message
Author
User avatar
nubc
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue 23 Jan 2007, 18:41
Location: USA

deleted files not retained in trash

#1 Post by nubc »

One would expect that the trash would hold discarded files until the user manually deletes or empties the trash. But by default, trash does not serve as temporary holding for discarded files. Apparently, deleted files go directly to unused disk space, and are unrecoverable by conventional means. How do I adjust settings so that the trash can works like Recycle Bin?

User avatar
rjbrewer
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue 22 Jan 2008, 21:41
Location: merriam, kansas

#2 Post by rjbrewer »

Maybe this can help:

[url]file:///usr/local/apps/Trash/Help/help.html[/url]

Inspiron 700m, Pent.M 1.6Ghz, 1Gb ram.
Msi Wind U100, N270 1.6>2.0Ghz, 1.5Gb ram.
Eeepc 8g 701, 900Mhz, 1Gb ram.
Full installs

User avatar
nubc
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue 23 Jan 2007, 18:41
Location: USA

#3 Post by nubc »

Sorry, that URL comes up "page not found" on my full install of 2.17.1, and I cannot navigate to the location with ROX because it doesn't exist. Question: What is the point of a trash can that doesn't hold trash?

User avatar
WhoDo
Posts: 4428
Joined: Wed 12 Jul 2006, 01:58
Location: Lake Macquarie NSW Australia

#4 Post by WhoDo »

nubc wrote:Question: What is the point of a trash can that doesn't hold trash?
Puppy Linux is about choice. If you choose to "delete" something in Puppy Linux the system does exactly what you tell it to do! OTOH, if you aren't sure whether you want to delete an item completely you can "move" it to Trash by dragging and dropping in which case the item will be preserved for later deletion (on your command) when you are really sure.

Just like "No" means no, "Delete" means delete in Puppy Linux. You have the choice to either delete immediately or hold items in trash for later deletion.

In Ubuntu that choice is removed from the options menu. The only option is to move an item to trash. That makes deletion a two-step process for everyone; no choice. That's not the Puppy way.

In Windows, the "choice" is much more confusing. Delete from the local hard drive and it goes to trash. Delete from a removable or network drive and it gets deleted immediately, bypassing trash with no warning.

There, in a nutshell, are your three different ways to implement trash. Which would you prefer? I prefer the Puppy Linux way of giving me the clear and unequivocal choice.
[i]Actions speak louder than words ... and they usually work when words don't![/i]
SIP:whodo@proxy01.sipphone.com; whodo@realsip.com

DemostiX
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri 24 Apr 2009, 15:17

#5 Post by DemostiX »

Whodo:

The OP's implicit request, IMO, is not an unreasonable one. Drag'ndrop is often clumsy. Saying that Puppy offers a choice which would often for users be tedious -to-impossible to implement cannot be a real choice or the last word. It certainly cannot be celebrated as "choice."

With all respect: MS is not the only OS for which marking for deletion on local drives may be final (sort of) on remote drives. On OS/2 - eComstation, files can be so marked; and configuration of the gui permits inclusion in all drop-down menus of an entry for "final deletion" at least when using the system file-manager, But, even the "marking-as-trash' came later, a response to user needs satisfied in other desktops.

Couldn't you say, instead,that this is something for a developer's or developers' council future-features list, priority to be determined? And isn't is possible that a file manager besides ROX already works this way?

User avatar
rjbrewer
Posts: 4405
Joined: Tue 22 Jan 2008, 21:41
Location: merriam, kansas

#6 Post by rjbrewer »

nubc wrote:Sorry, that URL comes up "page not found" on my full install of 2.17.1, and I cannot navigate to the location with ROX because it doesn't exist. Question: What is the point of a trash can that doesn't hold trash?
I don't know about 2.17; with anything modern:
r-click trash
app dir trash>look inside
click help
click help.html

Inspiron 700m, Pent.M 1.6Ghz, 1Gb ram.
Msi Wind U100, N270 1.6>2.0Ghz, 1.5Gb ram.
Eeepc 8g 701, 900Mhz, 1Gb ram.
Full installs

Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#7 Post by Sylvander »

Within "X File Explorer" [Xfe]...
When you right-click on an object [folder or file]...
You are offered the opportunity [among many others]...
To either "Move to trash" or "Delete". :D
And they are right beside each other on the context menu. 8)
You are asked to confirm the choice.

User avatar
nubc
Posts: 2062
Joined: Tue 23 Jan 2007, 18:41
Location: USA

#8 Post by nubc »

I'd be happy if "Move to trash" were added to the context menu in ROX.

Oakems
Posts: 322
Joined: Sat 21 Mar 2009, 17:02

#9 Post by Oakems »

I'm not sure how it is with 2.17.1, but in 4.2 DeeperThought there is a symlink in each folder named "Send To Trash" in this directory; /root/.config/rox.sourceforge.net/OpenWith/

Scrap that! It'll take you forever putting symlinks to the Trash folder in each separate individual directory. So instead, right-click on the type of file you wish to move to the trash (plain text file for example). When the menu comes up (I think it'll be the second entry down, the one that'll give you options for that file you've just right-clicked on) hopefully there'll be an option saying "Customize Menu..." Click on that and a window will open. Now simply drag the trash folder to that window and create an absolute symlink (I haven't tried this with a relative symlink), you can then rename it "Move To Trash" if you wish, but this is not mandatory. Now the next time you right-click on any plain text file, you'll have the option of moving it to the trash. Simply repeat the process for each type of file you'd like to have this option.

Like I say, I'm running Puppy 4.2, so it may not be the same for you, and please test this on an unimportant file that you don't mind losing. (I created a text file to test this with and it works in 4.2)

Sylvander
Posts: 4416
Joined: Mon 15 Dec 2008, 11:06
Location: West Lothian, Scotland, UK

#10 Post by Sylvander »

Why not just install and use Xfe?
It's a really GREAT file explorer.

Install both Fox-library and Xfe using the links provided here.

fobq
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 11:41
Location: Hungary

#11 Post by fobq »

hi,
what is ~/.local/share/trash used for? It seems to me there are some files I deleted earlier. This folder occupies 79MB.

Puppy Precise 5.7.1

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#12 Post by mikeb »

same as trash on windows.... only empty trash truly deletes files so might explain where your space is going.

Use right click delete if you really want to get rid of stuff..

mike

fobq
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 11:41
Location: Hungary

#13 Post by fobq »

I always delete files rigth click>delete (or CTRL-X), not > remove to trash.
And what about my Trash icon on the desktop, it points to ~/.Trash but it is empty.

I am confused with this Trash.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#14 Post by mikeb »

~/.local/share/trash

perhaps you tried a different window manager... or file manager.... or underwear...

delete it?

mike

fobq
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 11:41
Location: Hungary

#15 Post by fobq »

I use ROX filer
I deleted the content of that Trash, but I still have (by 100 MB) less free space, than two days earlier, however I installed nothing.
The usr/lib seems to be all right, the last modification in that library happened on 3rd of January.

oops, the second part of the post to here:
http://www.murga-linux.com/puppy/viewto ... 0&start=60

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#16 Post by mikeb »

so does the figure from gdmap not match with space used and nothing showing for the extra 100mb?

mike

fobq
Posts: 101
Joined: Mon 19 Aug 2013, 11:41
Location: Hungary

#17 Post by fobq »

pup_rw is 390MB in GDmap, and according to the personal storage icon I have 612MB => 1GB together. So it is right. But on Sunday, I had 730 MB free space.
I can not imagine what would have been downloaded or installed.

User avatar
mikeb
Posts: 11297
Joined: Thu 23 Nov 2006, 13:56

#18 Post by mikeb »

Ok well in that case are there large files showing in gdmap that seem unwanted.... you could examine the dates by looking at the actual file properties in rox

mike

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#19 Post by rufwoof »

fobq wrote:pup_rw is 390MB in GDmap, and according to the personal storage icon I have 612MB => 1GB together. So it is right. But on Sunday, I had 730 MB free space.
I can not imagine what would have been downloaded or installed.
In a terminal

find / -type f -size +100M -ls

might provide a clue if its a single large file or not

User avatar
rufwoof
Posts: 3690
Joined: Mon 24 Feb 2014, 17:47

#20 Post by rufwoof »

Under Slacko 5.7 (jwm) I deleted /root/.Trash (that's in the savefile space) and created a /mnt/home/.Trash directory (outside of savefile space, where all of the SFS's are kept) and then used ROX to drag that directory to my home directory and created a absolute link.

That way all 'trashed' files don't fill up savefile space.

Post Reply