On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 13:20, lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 11:40:38AM -0800, Kelly Clowers wrote: >> On Wed, Nov 26, 2008 at 10:42, lee <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > That shouldn't be there in the first place. You end up with hundreds >> > of megabytes of totally useless thumbnails >> >> They are not useless, they keep thumbnail display times reasonable. >> I have used programs that generate thumbnails on the fly, per session >> and it is slow and annoying. > > Ok, if it helps you, it's good to have them. But then, using them > should be an option, and I would want to be asked if I wanted to use > that option. Dumping an unlimited amount of files into a hidden > directory, eating up an unlimited amount of disk space without even > telling the user about it is retarded software design.
They could and maybe should put in an option to not use a cache, but Gnome apps probably wouldn't want to. >> They are needed to keep display times reasonable. All programs >> should use the same cache, and many do. If you have a favorite >> program that does not use ~/.thumbnails, you should probably >> file a bug. > > How am I supposed to know which programs would use a cache and where > the cache is when they don't even tell me? These files remain > there indefinitely if I don't delete them myself, no matter if I'm > using them or not. Ideally, the XDG dirs would become universal, and well known, like /etc, /usr, et al. > Why didn't they make it so that the user can specify how much disk > space can be used for thumbnails? Maybe they didn't think of it. The spec hasn't changed in a while, but it is only 0.7. Maybe it is time for 0.8 with a space limiter and ~/.cache/thumbnails/ instead of ~/.thumbnails <snip> > Imho it's better to design software so that it doesn't waste > resources. I probably haven't used 99.99% of the 350MB thumbnails in > more than two years, but now I'm supposed to spend $500+ on getting > new disks for crap like that? I don't think so. But if you want to > give me the money for it, you're welcome :) 350 MB? I have not cleaned my thumbnails since early 2007 or so and I had 1.6 GB. And my /home disk is only 120 GB, but I still don't care. I would care if my ~ is messy, but XDG standards are starting to fix that. But I don't care if large amounts of data are stored as long as it is in one logical place, where I can see it and control it if I want to, and it is serving some purpose. > As to setting up cron jobs to automatically delete data, I'm very > reluctant to do that. If something goes wrong, the job might delete > data I don't want it to delete. Something as simple as filenames > containing spaces can already make it go horribly wrong. I suppose, although nothing under .thumbnails should have a space or anything like that. But if, as you say, you haven't used 99.99% of the thumbnails in more than two years, then if you delete it once, it should take more than two years before more than a megabyte or two of thumbnails are added back in. Cheers, Kelly Clowers -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]