'Re: [KDE Usability] Review Request: Add a confirmation window when'

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List: kde-usability
Subject: Re: [KDE Usability] Review Request: Add a confirmation window when
From: Diego Moya <turingt () gmail ! com>
Date: 2010-04-01 11:57:22
Message-ID: m2w11ee04941004010457sd9a955e8i85dd9db251eb9935 () mail ! gmail ! com
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/alternative)]

On 31 March 2010 23:40, David Faure wrote:

> > I wouldn't expect the Undo function on Move To Trash, but I would
> > expect it for Delete and for Empty Trash.
>
> Which makes no sense, sorry :-)
>
> If your disk is full and you empty the trash, you certainly expect to get
> more
> disk space immediately... not after the 30 seconds undo, when the system
> can
> finally delete the files and make more space.
>
> Real deletion is -supposed- to delete immediately, otherwise assumptions
> are
> broken. This means no undo, but there's no other way.
>
> Would a 10 seconds delay be an acceptable compromise, in order to
distinguish Real Deletion from accidental deletion? Which is the case that
is being considered in this thread, BTW.

The Trash is a GUI intended to make life easier to people using the file
manager, after all. Power users always have the option to delete files
through the command line. Instant, unsafe deletion at the user's will. Why
make graphical tools unsafe for everybody else just to support this user
specifically?

I long for the days of MS-DOS (yes I'm that old), where the Undo command
could retrieve from the dead files that had been permanently deleted as long
as nobody else overwrote them. Why can't we have this functionality in the
XXI century? I know, ext3 yada yada. IMHO this is the single missing feature
of the Trashcan that would make all this debate moot. For real data deletion
you should use a Shredder anyway, not the Trashcan.

[Attachment #5 (text/html)]

<div class="gmail_quote">On 31 March 2010 23:40, David Faure <span \
dir="ltr"></span>wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px \
solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">

<div class="im">&gt; I wouldn&#39;t expect the Undo function on Move To Trash, but I \
would &gt; expect it for Delete and for Empty Trash. 
 
</div>Which makes no sense, sorry :-) 
 
If your disk is full and you empty the trash, you certainly expect to get more 
disk space immediately... not after the 30 seconds undo, when the system can 
finally delete the files and make more space. 
 
Real deletion is -supposed- to delete immediately, otherwise assumptions are 
broken. This means no undo, but there&#39;s no other way. 
 </blockquote></div>Would a 10 seconds delay be an acceptable compromise, in order \
to distinguish Real Deletion from accidental deletion? Which is the case that is \
being considered in this thread, BTW. The Trash is a GUI intended to make life \
easier to people using the file manager, after all. Power users always have the \
option to delete files through the command line. Instant, unsafe deletion at the \
user&#39;s will. Why make graphical tools unsafe for everybody else just to support \
this user specifically?

I long for the days of MS-DOS (yes I&#39;m that old), where the Undo command \
could retrieve from the dead files that had been permanently deleted as long as \
nobody else overwrote them. Why can&#39;t we have this functionality in the XXI \
century? I know, ext3 yada yada. IMHO this is the single missing feature of the \
Trashcan that would make all this debate moot. For real data deletion you should use \
a Shredder anyway, not the Trashcan.

<br>

_______________________________________________
kde-usability mailing list
kde-usability@kde.org
https://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-usability

[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 