Apparently, Prism Launcher chose to adhere to the idiotic principle of the hidden “trashbin”, .Trash-$(uid), invented by Ubuntu. Even though it’s based on QT. This can’t be disabled. It accumulated 139 GB of literal Trash, fully replaceable, over time. Just … why? There’s even an open issue about this, for over a year, referenced multiple times. I guess I have another point on my agenda.

  • d_k_bo@feddit.org
    89·
    7 days ago

    the hidden “trashbin”, .Trash-$(uid), invented by Ubuntu

    This isn’t some “idiotic principle invented by Ubuntu”, it just follows the freedesktop.org Trash specification. For many users, it can be really beneficial, see also the spec’s introduction:

    An ability to recover accidentally deleted files has become the de facto standard for today’s desktop user experience.

    Users do not expect that anything they delete is permanently gone. Instead, they are used to a “Trash can” metaphor. A deleted document ends up in a “Trash can”, and stays there at least for some time — until the can is manually or automatically cleaned.

    If an application like Prism Launcher should use the trash can or delete the files directly is an entirely different question.

    • akkajdh999@programming.dev
      314·
      7 days ago

      This isn’t some “idiotic principle invented by Ubuntu”, it just follows the freedesktop Trash specification

      So an idiotic spec invented by freedesktop then

    • lurch (he/him)@sh.itjust.works
      39·
      7 days ago

      and proper trashing is actually really helpful, so you can trash files on encrypted volumes without leaking them to a unencrypted trash dir.

      trashing saves time and has a more continous workflow, as you don’t have to confirm each file to prevent accidents, because you can restore if you deleted too much

    • theshatterstone54@feddit.uk
      132·
      7 days ago

      But why wouldn’t they use .local/share/Trash instead? Isn’t that supposed to be a unified directory for that very purpose?

      • cmnybo@discuss.tchncs.deEnglish
        43·
        7 days ago

        Because that would take a long time if you deleted a large file in another partition or drive. You could also end up not having enough space to move the file to trash and if the trash directory is on an SSD, it would add a lot of unnecessary wear to it.

        • d_k_bo@feddit.org
          8·
          7 days ago

          To explain it a bit further: when you move a file/directory on the same mount point, moving the file/directory is essentially just a rename operation, which doesn’t involve copying the data itself and is a very cheap operation. If you move a file/directory across mount points, you need to (recursively) copy the file/directory, copy file metadata and (recursively) delete the old file/directory, which is slow and error-prone.