A couple of comments here. I agree with Niall in that a properly
implemented trashcan should have both a capacity and length of time
where anything older than the specified time should be purged. I do think
that trashcans are useful in that we tend to delete things by accident.
However, in the case of undelete, that tends to be more of an unintended
feature of the FAT filesystem where deleting a file was simply to mark a
file as being deleted. In Unix type file systems, the file name is not really
part of the file system, only a symbol that points to the inode, so that the
rm command simple removes (unlinks) the file name. The file does not
get physically deleted until its use count goes to zero.
On 30 Jun 2000, at 14:37, Niall Kavanagh wrote:
> A properly implemented trashcan never needs purging. You tell it how much
> disk space you want to use for the trashcan, and it deals with files on a
> FIFO basis.
--
Jerry Feldman
Contractor, eInfrastructure Partner Engineering
508-467-4315 http://www.testdrive.compaq.com/linux/
Compaq Computer Corp.
200 Forest Street MRO1-3/F1
Marlboro, Ma. 01752
**********************************************************
To unsubscribe from this list, send mail to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] with the following text in the
*body* (*not* the subject line) of the letter:
unsubscribe gnhlug
**********************************************************
